BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Shakespeare be taught in high school

Absolutely not. First off, Sir Winston Churchill is clearly the most quoted author of the English Language. Not Shakespeare. See for example: Bessie Bardford: Winston, you are drunk!Churchill: And you madam are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober! Lady Astor: Winston, were you my husband I would poison you!Churchill: Madam, were I your husband I would drink it! Churchill also received a multitude of literary prizes and authorship awards for his voluminous work on A History of English Speaking Peoples, and of course The Second World War (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Secondly, Romeo and company have no place in the era of high-speed communications, global audiences, and computerized messaging. Here, speed, accuracy, clarity of expression, and ease of translation is given a high precedence over all other aspects of the written-word. In the 21st century, multi-cultured people would rather have you say exactly what you mean than try to bedlam it into poetic junk that’s impossible to understand. Just imagine trying to translate “Why thou lovest, thou are sweets thy prince of cats” to Chinese or even normal English to know what I mean. Finally, the language of the future is cleary 000s and 1s along with binary code. There are no jobs in poetry, and shakesphere will not be employable. And if any language is to be taught in schools these days, then it should be the one that is most universally spoken and most employable.
Should Shakespeare be taught in high school

Yes, "Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." William Shakespeare wrote this in King Henry VI Part 2. This quote demonstrates why he is the original "word guru." No one does it better than Shakespeare. Need I go on; must I point out that he wrote 37 plays and 154 sonnets, which are still quotes today. He is the most quoted author of the English language Shakespeare leads with a staggering 33,000 quotes. The Bible is quoted 25,000 times but is not an author. We would be doing our students a disservice if we did not teach his works.
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

I am here to affirm today's resolution Resolved: Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens A government needs to protect their citizens. One in every nine people on our planet go to bed hungry each night. This evidence just showed how many people are sent home hungry each night. One in nine people hungry at night is a ratio not many people want to hear. This is very bad. A just government can"t allow this. This leads me to my next piece of evidence. Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five " 3.1 million children each year. 45%. To me, this can"t be allowed. When 45% of children deaths are caused by hunger, hunger is clearly a serious problem. For a government to be just they must be fair to people and ensure food security. Only an injust government would allow people to die and have hungry nights.
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

Considering that we both forfeited a round, we will just continue on like that never happened. I'll start off with a rebuttal of my opponents arguments on my case, then I will move onto his case. My Contention 1: His arguments are not making sense at all to this. If he could elaborate, that would be fantastic. My Contention 2: My opponent claimed that to be a just government, you must require food security. My opponent no where provides a defines a Just Government, so without a proper definition, the resolution must read that a government ought to require food security. I state that a government will not require food security, because they're not morally right. My opponent in his 1AC failed to provide a definition of a just government so therefore I win that point. I will continue to hold up the fact that considering no definitions of a just government have been put out there that the resolution must read that a government ought to require food security. My value of Justice still holds this up better, because it is unjust to put the faults of a country onto their government. So therefore just because someone is poor, does not make it the governments moral obligation to provide food security. I urge a negative ballot in today's debate, due to the inherent abuse that my opponent has brought upon me by not providing a set definition.
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

I do accept the value of Justice, but only food security gives people what is due, so pro better upholds Justice In my first contention attack he says that governments have no obligation to give us food. He says they only owe us security and safety, but I will refute that by saying that isn't food security a type of security. This means that Food security should be granted according to my opponent. He also states the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee food security, but the resolution states a Just Government as the agent not the United States Now on to attack my opponent's case Contention 1: His claim was a government can't be held accountable. I stated checks and balances make a government accountable. He agreed with that, thus disproving his 1st contention. Also, my opponent brings up the Constitution as a reason not to support it, but the resolution does not specify the US so that argument falls. Contention 2: He says that a government doesn't have to enforce food security, but to be a just government according to John Rawls we must be fair and it is not fair to allow people to starve. I will now go on to attack the flaws he stated in my case and go on to give key flaws in his case. My flaws as he stated Flaw 1: He stated that my hunger argument is irrelevant because this is happening in developing countries. He says that there is no social contract. This would mean that every government is a dictatorship because they aren't their for the people. A dictatorship is not a fair government so there is a social contract. It also matters that this is happening in developing countries because to be a just government they must help the people no matter how rich or poor. Flaw 2: He says I fail to give legit framework but My framework is just as legitimate as his because I give contentions I am just accepting the value of Justice. It is for these reasons I urge a pro ballot
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

Rebuttal- Opponents Case- My opponent has no value, which therefore he accepts mine. I will reiterate my value of justice because a government does not owe the people anything. Neither morally nor constitutionally. Opponents 1st point: Essentially a just government must require food security to correct hunger. This is completely false. What a just government must require is security and safety. Food security is not justified under the US constitution. No where in the Bill of Rights does it say "The Government owes the citizens food security." His attacks on my case- 1. Government Can't be held accountable. Checks and Balances allow a government to be made accountable. I agree, but but you missed my whole point in general. To put it into more understandable terms, A democrat can not be mad at a republican senate or house for a bill failing. Food security will never be passed, due to the fact that the law itself is not supported under the United States Constitution and the fact that it is irrational. 2. My opponent said a government has to have moral obligation or else there is no need for them. This again is false, due to the fact that a government doesn't owe a poor person money and doesn't owe a person food security. A government is just if it is morally right in most of it's actions. Providing food security isn't a matter of morality, but instead a matter of outrageous. Food security is outrageous. I want to point out a few flaws in my opponents case. He brought up a statistic about hungry people in the world. He failed to provide the full statistic, just picking and choosing what he wanted you to hear. He is the full statistic provided by [1] "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15 percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people undernourished in developed countries." Now you might ask, why is this relevant? Well, almost 852 million people that were hungry live in developing countries. My opponent said that under the Social Contract that the government owes these people the right to live a happy life. Well, these developing countries don't have a social contract. These countries are not required under any laws, well neither is the United States, to provide food security for their citizens. My framework, which my opponent lacks, remains un-touched. As does my value, which I achieve better than my opponent. I urge a con ballot
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

I agree with my opponents value but aff upholds it better. I uphold it better because as I have provenit is unjust to allow people to suffer. Food security would stop that partially. At least better than without food security My opponent's first contention is that a government can't be held accountable because it has multiple parts, but this is false. Checks and balances allow a government to be made accountable. An accountable government is just, so government must be accountable to be a just government. Since a just government is the agent of action in this case they must be accountable. This means his 1st contention can't stand His second contention was a government has no moral obligation. This can't happen because then a government has no reason to exist if they fail to represent the people. Also, when we look at social contract this can't happen because when we work the government is entitled to help us. In his attack on my first contention, he said the government doesn't owe us food security. They in fact do according to social contract. Also, a government has no reason to exist if they don't work for the people. Justice can be measured in helping people contrary to my opponen
New Zealand should abolish their defence force

They should definetely NOT abolih their defense forces. I mean anything could happen. The U.S. are just big mean bullies of the south pacific. If I was New Zealand I would be trying anything to protect myself from the U.S. The U.S. is going to go crazy if anything happens to them so New Zealand should definetely not abolish their defense forces. P.S. Australia isn't very nice either
New Zealand should abolish their defence force

In case you're wondering, yes, I am reposting this challenge. In the other debate I suspect my opponent of not wanting to continue to debate - he only went on the site for a couple of minutes, accepted my challenge, and hasn't been seen or heard from since. Therefore, I'd like to offer the oppertunity to any other debater who dares to challenge me on this topic!Thanks to everybody who reads this debate. I know the topic is a bit strange. Nevertheless, I hope that whoever takes this will be willing to actually have a serious discussion about it. That means: do not take this debate unless you're going to finish all the rounds, and do not take this debate to troll it.To clarify the motion, "New Zealand" refers to the New Zealand Government, and the defence force refers to the New Zealand Defence Force - including the Royal New Zealand Navy, the New Zealand Army, and the Royal New Zealand Air Force, but not the New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. Abolition would be a process that would happen gradually over the course of a few years, as military assets are sold and so forth. Otherwise all words in the motion have their usual dictionary meaning.Being a citizen of New Zealand I recognise that I may have a unfair advantage in this debate, so my opponent may go first (if they choose) and gain the benefit of an extra round. You'll have 8000 characters to make your case every round, and 72 hours to post them. You may even go on my other debate on this topic to see what sort of case I'll probably run.Good luck!
College is a Necessity to be Successful

The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to "Actually, College is Very Much Worth It" by Andrew J. Rotherham "College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans." College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.
College is a Necessity to be Successful

Having a degree doesn't open as many doors as people think it does. Many employers who post job openings are now saying "this *blank* degree required or equivalent experience." For example, I am currently running my own media business and I often take clients downtown in our city for photo shoots. It just so happens that there is a college campus located downtown, and I often run into many photography majors on assignments when I'm on shoots. Several have come up to me on the job and asked "are you doing the assignment for professor so-and-so," or "do you go here?" and I have to reply "nope, I'm actually working..." I'm the same age as they are, I'm passionate about the same things are they are, but I'm MAKING money instead of SPENDING it. There are so many careers you don't need degrees or any form of certification for, you just have to have the perseverance and will to gain the experience and master your craft. One of my biggest pet peeves is when I ask a high school senior what they want to do, and they reply with, "I don't know, but I'm going to school for business because that's a safe fall-back." How is wasting you time and money "safe?" If college was 100% free of charge, then shoot, go for it. Or if you or your parents can pay for it out of pocket with no problem, then be my guest. But if you're taking out student loans on a credential that you may not actually need, then I'd say you're being reckless, not safe. Plus, college can always come later! If you've really tried to do your own thing for a couple of years and found you can't get anywhere you want to be without a degree, then guess what? You can still go get that degree. There is no harm in taking a gap year, in fact it has proven to be extremely beneficial to kids who have no idea what they want to do.
College is a Necessity to be Successful

I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning "half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. "According to Wall Street Journal,"Paying for college never is easy, but it"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can"t afford a college education. That"s wrong. Most of them can." Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.
College is a Necessity to be Successful

College should not be your time to figure out what you're good at, it should not be your time to establish what you're passionate about. If you don't know what you want to do for the rest of your life, how is wasting 4 years and THOUSANDS of dollars helping you? There is no harm in taking a gap year. Also, if you know what career you would like to pursue and it doesn't 100% require a degree (i.e. doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.), why would you waste your money on one? College is, in my opinion, the most costly & stupid "trial-run" you could ever go through. And the crazy thing is, is that there IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING AFTER YOU GRADUATE. ESPECIALLY if you have a butt-load of student loans.
Obama over Clinton in the the Democratic Nomination race.

I think Barack Obama would be the better choice for the president of the United states over Hilary Clinton. I would like to debate with a Hilary Clinton supporter. I hope this can be positive. I think either one of us want to diaparage the other's candidate too much, lest the opponents pick win the nomination, and we would have to show support to that individual candidate. Let's say we agree on these things based on the candidates actions: 1.Does not want to stay in Iraq any more than we have to. Steady withdrawal, until very little to no troops remain. 2.Health care is a priority. 3.Education should be a priority. 4.Either one would be FAR superior to any Republican. Things I don't like about Hilary: 1. Symbolic of the notion of dynasties in the White House. That doesn't seem patriotic. Since 1981 a Bush or a Clinton has been in the White house. So if Hilary is elected, and assuming she gets eight years, be will have had two families in the White house for 35 years. What next Jeb? Who then, freak n' Chelsea!! Im getting dizzy!! 2. Ultra-Polarizing figure. Decent Senator, from what it seems. But many Democrats love her and many, many Republicans HATE her. I mean, it's a little crazy. They get all red in the face whenever anyone mentions her. A bit obsessive. So right there you have another dividing line the center of the country. Dems vs. Republicans.!! Fight to the finish!! Divider vs. Obama's coalition building philosophy. 3. Uses the matter of her experience as the ultimate litmus test for a president. ALL the time. Experiences by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, their dullard puppet, ol' GW himself, and the rest. Help put us where this country is at today. It doesn't sell me enough. 4. Uses Bill too much. 5. Win at any cost republican like tactics. Taking quotes out of context amongst others. (This is a little low I think) 6. Status quo. No real change. Like I said, up to 35 years of two families. Obama Pros: 1. Truly dramatic figure to represent a new face, and a new direction of the U.S. to the rest of the world and so importantly to it's own citizens. 2. Republicans can't get him on originally supporting the Iraq war ala John Kerry. Hillary can't do that. 3. Even my extremely religious conservative 68 year old mom and my VERY patriotic cousin from Tennessee likes Obama. That says a lot to me. He can reach across these artificial barriers to real progress we have in our society. The hardcore extremists on both sides, put up these barriers between the people our country. The rich get richer, the poor struggle and still get poorer. Actually more like a giant fence that stretches for eight hundred miles. 4. Wisdom, honesty, sincerity are stronger than experience. The president provides direction, leadership, vision and the ability to get people to work with him. He can help the people get their collective voice back. 5. I would be amazed to see a man of color as president and what that represents to the people of a mixed society like ours and to the rest of the world. A woman is a close second on this one. Sorry. So let's start there.
scrambled eggs come from roosters

For my second argument I would like to state that my opponent has in someway said what I just said and for that I will start a new chart to represent my facts. 1. The rooster the source of the little young the person you go to or rooster in this case to have a kid and the farmers are not going to let the rooster any where near those hens unless the farmer wants baby hens or roosters and the hen would continue to lay eggs all day long with out the rooster there so I'm betting you thought the hens were sitting on there butts all day when they are but are non stop laying eggs. 2. Roosters are guys and it's a fact that they don't lay eggs guys don't have kids so neither do animals. 3. Hens are girls and as we all know females have the babys and the hens lay the eggs and eggs can become kids or just be an eggs for a human to eat. It is for these reasons I stand con.
scrambled eggs come from roosters

my opponent states that their doesn't have to be a rooster present for their to be scrambled eggs, well I would like to present a new chart: 1. the roster mates with a hen 2. the fertilized egg hatches 3.the fertilized egg turns out to be a hen 3 the hen is kept in a separate area from the rosters 4. the hen lays eggs that hold no embryo 5. the human creates scrambled eggs Still my statement stands.
scrambled eggs come from roosters

Here are some simple reasons why eggs don't come from roosters: 1. The hen lays eggs every day and the rooster dosn't have to fertilize the egg to have a egg pop out. 2. To meet the demand of the world hens lay eggs non stop and the farmers only put a rooster in the cage if they want a egg to be ferilized so they could eather have a baby hen or rooster. 3. Roosters don't lay eggs it's a simple fact I meen have you ever seen a egg pop out of a rooster I meen really if your that dumb to think that then you need to learn your animals. It is for these reasons I stand pro thank you.
Statistics are not inherently trustworthy reliable

Statistics in weather are unreliable in many areas themselves, around here (Colorado) it is common to expect snow and have 80 degree weather, or the inverse, and in general the reliability of weather reports depends very much so on location, and how it affects the measurements. For scientific and political uses, statistics are far to easy to manipulate. It is perfectly possible, and common, for statistics to be taken advantage of (Purposely or not), by using a small sample size, a sample from a small area, manipulative wording of questions, or not enough answers. Often, whether done purposely or not, these things are done, and cause a poll taken to be totally inaccurate to the truth. Not to mention random chance, with the possibility of being entirely wrong no matter what. No matter what kind of statistics are being recorded any of these things are likely to affect the results, to show that we shouldn't rely on or trust statistics.
Statistics are not inherently trustworthy reliable

I will be arguing against the proposition that statistics are not inherently trustworthy and reliable. I will argue my claim on the grounds of ambiguity of the proposition. It is naive to see statistics as 100% effective in predicting outcomes. Just as it is to perceive them as solid evidence to support stereotypes. For sake of argument, I will stick to inferential statistics as the topic of debate. We use a very common statistic every day. When we look at weather reports we are looking at a calculated measure of chance based upon conditions and trends. We then plan our events around the chance of certain weather events. These chances are adapted to situations as new data is recorded. We know the typical conditions of a tornado and can calculate the chance of certain conditions to produce a tornado by their relativity to optimal conditions. To a more scientific usage of inferential statistics, we can get demographic data from self reported polls. By using voter data collected upon registration, candidates can target campaigns to specific demographics. Especially in local elections, targeting the party you are running for is a very effective method of getting votes. By gathering the percent make-up of voters by party in an area, we save time by judging the chance of the voters to be sympathetic to our cause.