BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT student should learn the third language.

Thank you for Con's opinion. But I have 3 rebuttals to make before go on. - THBT student "should" learn the third language. I dind't define that student "compulsory" learn. It means you can choose by yourself. - Efficiency of student isn't their own bussiness. I think there are no taking care too much about student's ability in another country. But Education in Thailand was covered by Thai government, so this is government responsibility to improve all students. The last treasure is the education. I think it's not bad to learn more; especially in language. I really believe that student can gain more benefits from education! - Student shouldn't decrease their attempt because what they do is DIFFICULT!! "Learning another language is difficult, especially in languages which are not spoken natively." Who told you to learn unspoken language, I didn't tell that student have to learn Egyptian ,Khmer or something which not useful to their live. I just support about third language. And if they learn many language they will alive! Many people know; when you go to travel in foreign country and you can speak that language you will get more experiences. If you don't know verious languages same as you lock the door and live with yourself! Let's come to my argument. - Learn more isn't a problem! Teenager is the most dangerous life span. If parent don't guide them to do good ,They will do what they want and they don't care about social. Students are teenager. They have to grow up to be adult. If they don't have good efficiency; how can they teach their child? So, I think parent should let them know which is good or bad because THEY CAN'T DECIDE WHAT TO DO BY THEMSELVES. It's not their own business. It's parent business to direct their child to be in the line. Education is the way to improve their children and I already elaborate in the first round about many advantages of learning third language! wo jue de wo bi sai ying jia! This is a benefit of education!!
THBT student should learn the third language.

"- Only 2 languages aren't enough! " --> This is one hypothetical situation. If someone wants to learn Indian to become a business man there, it's their own business. Education should be tailored to what you think is useful to learn. Let's also take the same situation. What if you have to get the said materials in Spain? Or China? Or South Korea? The possibilities are endless sand it isn't a valid argument for learning a third language. Overall, most people won't move country and won't be in the said situation. "- The advantages from learning many language! " --> 1) If someone ant s to learn about Chinese history, it should be their own business to learn Chinese to figure out the history. Same with anything that requires a language. Besides, most history has been translated. 2) Any compulsory education should be preparation for life. Anything outside that is personal and should be learned on your own time. 3) Chinese has hieroglyphic like characters, not the English Latin characters you are reading. Languages like Greek and Russian are Cyrillic. The challenge of learning these is great and outweigh a possible advantage ===CON arguments:== Learning another language is difficult, especially in languages which are not spoken natively. [. http://ezinearticles.com...] I quote the article in that: "Lack of exposure is your greatest challenge. Attending a class once a week is not enough. You need to be exposed to the language on a daily basis" If the language learned is not native, it is an uphill challenge to learn it. Furthermore, what are the educational benefits of learning a language if a student is aiming for a college degree in Philosophy? Or History?
THBT student should learn the third language.

- Only 2 languages aren't enough! Everybody know that student have to learn their local language and English in school. But I think only 2 languages aren't enough. Suppose you are Thai ,and you want to find a good materials which are only in India. You have to contact someone but if he can't speak English and also Thai. How do you do? This is a problem that we have to solve it at the root cause from education in school. Student who learns third language E.G. Chinese ,Hindi ,Spanish , Japanese ,or Thai they will get more opportunities in real life!! You can easily find a job if you told the company that you can speak more than 2 or 3 languages. I strongly believe that If student learn third.. maybe forth language, they will gain more advantage. - The advantages from learning many language! Education is a social process. Education is growth. Education is, not a preparation for life; education is life itself. I'm very advocate to these opinions. Suppose again, If you want to know about chinese history. Nobody can tell you better than Chinese people or Chinese books. If you don't know chinese, you can't know it clear and sure! I confirm. And another advantage from learning many language is you will understand when foriegn people talking about you! If you don't know their language, they will gossip you and smile to you like they talk in another story. It good for you to know another people mind too!! I strongly believe that student should learn the third language or more than this. There are many benefits as I have proved to you above! So, I think this debate should fall to Pro side! Thank you for you guy's attention.
unfair advantage in debateing

I would like to say that there is nothing wrong with presenting personal debates as evidence, it just seems a little odd that you presented ONLY personal debates (had you presented some personal with some non-personal, that would have been cool). I would like to restate the resolution, and the way I saw it, I will use quotes as much as possible to avoid saying anything new. "I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word." - my opponent R1. "This means that if it weren't for the contender having the last word, the instigator would not be at a disadvantage. I will argue that having the last word is only a minor advantage at best and that there are other advantages which make having the last word almost meaningless." - myself R1. My opponent never objected to this, so there is no reason to not accept my interpretation (there's obviously no quotes on something not said, so I can't quote this). I merely ask voters to vote based on the resolution and the way it was viewed and not challenged. As such, I will say nothing more.
unfair advantage in debateing

Since the reslution is "the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word." This means that if it weren't for the contender having the last word, the instigator would not be at a disadvantage. I will argue that having the last word is only a minor advantage at best and that there are other advantages which make having the last word almost meaningless. But, since I do have the last word, I do not wish to steal the first word from my opponent, and so I will let him go first.
0=nothing=information, 1=something=matter

As I mentioned in OB1, Pro has to prove that information is nothing, and 1 is matter. 1 may even be a unit to measure energy. Now I will show you how 0 can be something while the net value is nonetheless 0. According to the zero-energy universe hypothesis, which is widely accepted by physicists because of the homogeneity of the universe, the vector force of gravity acts as negative energy over the scalar positive energy, that cancel out each other in the universe. Therefore, the some of all energy in the universe is zero, but the universe has some energy nonetheless. [1] 1 can also be a value of non-matter energy. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
0=nothing=information, 1=something=matter

I accept.1+0=1 by Pro's own logic. Mathematically, 1 banana + 0 bananas means it still remains as one banana, as nothing was added. Pro's logic defies themselves in this matter. Pro must prove that 1+0 is an impossible equation. The primary aspect of the resolution which I question is that information is nothing. OB1. Pro must prove every aspect of the resolution, whereas I need to only refute a single aspect to render the resolution baseless. I challenge "information=o" or "information=nothing".
0=nothing=information, 1=something=matter

pick up 0 sodas from the floor i can cut an apple in 4 pieces, and then resemble the apple and have it look like i got a full apple, but i have an apple in 4 pieces 1+0=1 is a false equation, 1 can not be added to 0, so its just 1, 1 banana + 0 bananas dosnt mean 1 banana dissapears and neither is 0 bananas added, it simple cant happen, and i still have 1 banana.. so 1+0(1) 0*6(6) 0/3(3) 3/0(3)
War Scenario: USA vs. nation of choice

Ok Redbaron, here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna end this debate and start a new one with the same topic. But in the new one, I'm gonna make the debate 5 rounds instead of 3 and change the character limit to 10,000 instead of 8,000. And one other thing, when I said nation of choice, I meant I choose the nation I'm gonna be. I will probably choose Iran. I'm gonna set up the new debate and challenge you so that no one else can accept the debate. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Oh and let's be realistic, Mexico vs the USA would be a skirmish not a war. The US would win in a month.
Semantics lovers, this debate is for you

Greetings to my opponent. Let us begin this grand debate. First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions. TO PACIFY CON's ARGUMENT: Now, CON's entire round is based on the notion that since the resolution means nothing, that it is false. Even if I am to agree with the notion that the resolution is meaningless, this does nothing to assure victory for the contender and his conclusion is merely nothing more than usage of the non sequitur fallacy. Let us keep in mind that "this debate" meaning nothing can make the resolution appear as if it is saying "Semantics lovers, nothing is for you." Given that my opponent is a semantics lover and that he came into this debate knowingly getting nothing, I'd say CON has only proven the resolution true and has hence won me the debate. That said, even though I don't have to, I shall refute CON's actual argument anyway. RE:"Both definitions of the word 'debate' use the word 'argument.' The first definition of 'debate' uses the second definition of 'argument,' since the first definition does not make sense when applied. The first definition makes plenty of sense (contrary to the words of CON). This is technically a public meeting between us (one which we are presenting opposing arguments) given that this website is accessible to public and can be seen by the public which is the residents of debate.org. RE: "Note that while the usage for 2.1 makes sense, the usage for 2.2 does not make sense. The second definition of debate therefore is referring to the first definition of argument. QED." This is incorrect. The second definition of debate is indeed sensible. If we are to consider "for" as 'revolving around", then "a fetus is not capable of pain" would be no different than a formal debate resolution. For instance, they have Resolved: It is just to counter domestic violence with lethal force. This is merely one side of the the arguments presented, yet is considered the debate. To make use of my opponent's example, it would be "Resolved: During abortion, a fetus is not capable of pain." Proving or disproving this notion could lead one to conclude whether or not abortion is in fact acceptable/unacceptable. Basically, this goes to show that AFF statements can be considered as being "the" debate. Lastly, I place two cards face down and end my turn.
Semantics lovers, this debate is for you

Howdy Logical-Master, and all of you as well. Time for some definitions. Debate is used as a noun in the resolution. Debate (n.): 1. A formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented. 2. An argument. Source: http://www.askoxford.com... Argument (n.): 1. A heated exchange of diverging or opposite views. [Example: I got into an argument with my landlord] 2. A set of reasons given in support of something. [Example: Here is my argument for abortion] Source: http://www.askoxford.com... Both definitions of the word 'debate' use the word 'argument.' The first definition of 'debate' uses the second definition of 'argument,' since the first definition does not make sense when applied. The second definition of 'debate' uses the first definition of 'argument.'Here is why: Note that I gave usage examples for each of the definitions of 'argument.' Since the second definition of 'debate' is simply "an argument," we should be able to replace '[an] argument' with '[a] debate] in any definitions that are correct. Here is what we end up with. Debate (n.): 2.1. A heated exchange of diverging or opposite views. [Example: I got into a debate with my landlord.] 2.2. A set of reasons given in support of something. [Example: A debate for abortion is that a fetus is not capable of pain.] Note that while the usage for 2.1 makes sense, the usage for 2.2 does not make sense. The second definition of debate therefore is referring to the first definition of argument. QED. This cannot be defined as a debate by either definition, thus 'this debate' means nothing, thus the resolution is false. And with that, I will allow Logical-Master to do his thing.
Barbie is bad for body image

We can't dismiss a point, but I'm not. I'm considering it heavily, and I am yet to see any evidence that is convincing. Your job is to convince me, and you haven't done that. I don't see how Barbie could impact self-esteem. When kids are bombarded with so many more realistic unattainable examples of beauty, we have no reason to believe their toys are a major factor in the problem. The high expectations for female beauty are certainly a problem, but it is lead by real (well, photoshopped) images, not by dolls. Your Bobo example just isn't relevant. Kids mirror behavior. If we were arguing about a Barbie movie that positively depicts her having an eating disorder, that would be one thing. We're talking about a doll though. In the Bobo analogy, Barbie is Bobo. Kids will develop their self-esteem based on their parents' behavior. If a mom constantly says that she's fat, the daughter will probably do the same. That causes body-image issues, so I don't understand why people are so quick to blame the toys themselves. This experiment is not comparable to just playing with a toy individually. That article talks about how eating disorders are caused by unrealistic standards, but it doesn't touch on the main question: Can these unrealistic standards be advanced by dolls? I believe they can't. I don't think children are comparing themselves to dolls, and that study doesn't give me reason to believe I'm wrong. Why? I have other studies that prove otherwise. In 2010, a study showed that "one toy girls were given didn't affect their body image" (3). In 2014, a study showed "no association between body image and how old they were when they started playing with Barbies" (3), which should matter, if we're comparing it to other methods of indoctrination to beauty ideals. You're right-- there's no conclusive research on this. So we must consider it rationally. It doesn't seem rational to me to believe children want to be their dolls. (3) https://psmag.com...
Barbie is bad for body image

I agree that scientific research on this topic is thin, but as I agree burden of proof lies with me, I have to work with what is available. And As of now the current thought in the psychological community is that Barbie is negative to body image. This study helps suggest that. We cannot dismiss a point just because it seems to lack significant backing. Studies on smoking were slow and the releasing of them were blocked by tobacco companies. Just because the studies are not plentiful, does not mean we can ignore the issue. The issue that remains with Barbie is that it shows what is "beauty." You expressed yourself that very thing. But that is the problem when Barbie is the base line of beauty when her body is only achievable by one in 100,000 women. This expectation and false perception of beauty is what leads to eating disorders and lower self esteem. The bobo doll experiment shows that children look up to a "model" and wish to mimic it. That model for many girls is Barbie and they aspire to look like her. http://www.mirror-mirror.org...
Barbie is bad for body image

I'm less than impressed with the procedure of that experiment. They didn't measure the children' body image before exposing them to the dolls, so who's the say the children selected to look at Barbie didn't just happen to have a lower self-esteem? Also, the effects of looking at pictures are not the same as the effects of playing with dolls, even according to this very study. The article claims young children identify with the dolls they play with. That would not make them view themselves as fat. If anything, they'd feel thinner. Anyway, this information can't completely be believed, as there are so many red flags surrounding the credibility of this piece.It's hard to test for self-esteem, anyway. I know that I don't always tell the truth completely when people ask about my self-esteem. Sometimes I'm just having a bad day. Sometimes it's complicated and can't be summed up by a happy, neutral, or sad face.This study is also described as "the first of its kind" (2). Scientific studies take multiple recreations before complete acceptance. I'm sure I could find 54 girls with fantastic self esteem to look at Barbies and they say they like themselves. If the girls I had look at neutral pictures had negative or normal self esteem, I could then publish a scientific study with little to no information about the participants' history and claim that Barbies raise self-esteem. It would be about as credible as this article. Therefore, it would be a highly illogical leap to assume Barbie has a negative impact on self-esteem just because of this one study. I don't really understand what the Bobo experiment has to do with anything. The children imitated people. If anything, this proves that children can get low self-esteem from their parents. You say "children learn and want to mimic people and actions in their environment." That doesn't mention dolls. I didn't see anyone pretending to get beat up like Bobo. They didn't imitate him. (2) Your study
Barbie is bad for body image

http://willettsurvey.org... This study really says it all. It clearly shows a trend to self esteem and body dissatisfaction depending whether or not a child was playing with Barbie dolls. This can be explained by social learning theory made by Bandura. His bobo doll experiment shows that children learn and want to mimic people and actions in their environment. Many things do affect children and their body image, we are not debating those. But we still see that the playing with Barbie dolls does create problems with body image. http://www.simplypsychology.org...
Barbie is bad for body image

The BoP is on Pro here, but I'll lay a few things out to get things started.The argument I have heard the most against Barbie is that young girls compare themselves to her, even though her proportions are not realistic; however, I disagree that Barbies are childrens' main source of comparison. As a child, I compared myself to my friends, to movie stars, to models in magazines... the list goes on and on, but it doesn't include my toys. Why? Because Barbie is unrealistic. She's a doll. The fact that she's out of proportion just emphasizes that.Barbie proves that girls can look pretty and still be intelligent and talented. This (1) Barbie is a doctor, and it's part of the Career Barbie line. It proves that girls can be anything they want to be. The question isn't "Beauty or brains?" You can have both.(1) http://www.amazon.com...;
Barbie is bad for body image

I believe that playing with Barbie dolls as a young child is NOT inherently bad for body image. Pro will be arguing that Barbie does indeed have a negative impact on body image. You can specify if you want to discuss just Barbie's impact on girls, or include Ken's impact on boys. 8,000 characters, but no penalty for shorter arguments, if they get the job done. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening statements. Third round is rebuttals. Fourth round is conclusion. I'm not picky about following the outline, though. Put rebuttals in the opening or closing and introduce new points in rebuttals, if you want. Just don't introduce any new points in the conclusion.
Gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution

(1A) The two dimensional picture of a magnetic field is identical to a two dimensional picture of a torus. The only way the magnetic field can not be a torus, is for the magnetic field to only work in two dimensions, which is demonstrably false. f.ex., if you have a magnet on the table, it is not the case that only what you place on the table will be attracted, but also what is below and over the table, so the two dimensional picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org... actually encompassing three dimensions hence the reason it's a torus. I do not see how you could disagree with this, but if you do, please say so.(2A) Of course there is nothing on the web about it... nearly no one on earth understands how magnetism works. Richard Feynman, who was one of the most respected physicists, squirmed in his chair when asked about the deep workings of magnetism, scientists as of the 21st century are still clueless about magnetism. They know how to describe what happens, but how it works? Nope. But let me elaborate a bit more on the inverse spin in polarity: if you have two wheels... both are spinning clockwise... once you invert one of them, it seems like they are spinning in the opposite direction, but they are both going clockwise. This is what happens in the following picture: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...;(3A) Here is how... let us move to the fundamentals, an atom for example. I am not stating that mass is not equal to gravity, what I am stating is that the mass does not express gravity due to a bending of spacetime, but rather in a magnetic fashion. Atoms would be nothing but dielectric condensates, very much like gas frozen into a solid state and what we label "empty space" in an atom would be magneto-dielectricity. So we have one field, and one release of that fields potential (i.e., the loss of that inertia) as expressed in force and motion, and we have two field modalities: one being electricity (frequency and amplitude) and the other one being gravity, which is as I said a dielectric condensate. Take for example the planet earth: it's nothing but a collection of dielectric condensates... which together create a magnetic field but not as coherent as the magnets we produce, hence the reason "gravity" has been labeled a weak force. This brings us to the title of this debate: "gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution" If you need anything else clarified, please let me know.