BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teachers are the biggest DOG FVCKERS in the world

"Teachers are slackers" They work harder then you do. The conventional person works about 40 hours a week. Teachers are in work for an obvious 30 hours a week and they may have 15 hours of HW to make a week. They may have additional work to do on the weekends. This adds to over 45 hours of work a week compared to the average person's 40 hours a week. The 5 hour difference per week can in theory get accumulated so they get extra time as a summer break. Even during this summer break, They often have to work a 2nd job to get by. This also applies during the school year. Saying they are slackers is incorrect, And for you even hypocritical since you don't have a job yourself (http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Work-is-for-slaves-and-overachievers/2/). Whether or not they are pedophiles varies based on the individual. I imagine most teachers are not pedophiles and the burden of proof is on Pro to prove most of them are. Do you have a source to back up what you are saying? I couldn't access the Huff post link but I did access the Buzzfeed link. It was sarcastic and it actually showed how much teachers care about their students. It showed how hard working they are. Can you site your teacher statistics?
Teachers are the biggest DOG FVCKERS in the world

Let me clarify my statement, Teachers are slackers and pedophiles. How many times have we heard of teachers having relationships with under age students or having child porn on their computers. Teachers make a reasonable salary especially when it comes to higher learning like in college, Yet they strike all the time and complain about everything. https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/the-second-city-network/5-reasons-teachers-are-ov_b_5273532. Html https://www. Buzzfeed. Com/jonmichaelpoff/teachers-are-superheroes? Utm_term=. Sp24vdlgL#. RmN8r9jem Public school teachers did pretty well by the hour. In 2005, They worked an average of 36. 5 hours per week at an average wage of $34. 06 an hour. That was better than 61% of the other occupations the researchers examined, Including architects, Psychologists, Chemists, Mechanical engineers, Economists, And journalists (! ). There were big variations by metro area, But teachers still generally beat out their peers. Raleigh, North Carolina, Was the only metro area where public school teachers made less than the average white collar worker. In Louisville, Kentucky, They made 79% more. Although teachers as a group score above the national average on intelligence tests, Their scores fall below the average for other college graduates
Teachers are the biggest DOG FVCKERS in the world

1. Just because you don't like them does not mean they have sex with dogs. My Dad is a teacher and he does not have sex with my pet dog. 2. While they get way more break then the average adult, They also tend to get paid less then the typical adult. The annual salary of the average teacher is about $46, 500 whereas the annual salary of the average adult is $51, 000 per year. Sources: https://www. Payscale. Com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary https://www. Thebalancecareers. Com/average-salary-information-for-us-workers-2060808 Also, Teachers tend to work much more then in the classrooms. They have a 6 hour classroom day, And then have to do a few hours of work each day making the lessons for next class. They do this frequently on their own too, Which is harder then in a group. When many non teachers are done with their jobs, They get to relax at home. Teachers don't get this privilege.
Teachers are the biggest DOG FVCKERS in the world

Teachers are the biggest slackers and dog fvckers in the world. I just saw the schedule for this year and there is a PA day after one week of school. Seriously? You are telling me that the 150 days for summer was not enough time to prep yourslf for the school year. All teachers do is bitch and complain about too many kids in their classroom and not getting paid enough. Really? Welcome to the real world dog fvckers. A teacher works for what, 8 monthjs of the year? You get 2 weeks for Christmas, You get spring break, You get reading weeks off, You get the whole summer off and you are still bitching? Most people get 2-3 weeks off not 4 months off, And everyone is busy and works hard, Yet the teachers are the ones always bitching and complaining on the news about wages and over crowding, Blah blah blah, Cry me a river. Teachers are the biggest dog fvckers in the world #teachersRlazy, #teachersRslackers
The Instigator should always set the ground for a debate

Starting with Con's "positive" argument I already said in my last argument that if the Instigator was willing to argue any aspect of a topic, it's okay, just as long as they explain it. By simply saying "I will argue any aspect of this topic," the Instigator is setting the grounds for the debate and preventing the Contender from having any trouble trying to evaluate the intent of the Instigator. Without this, it may leave a vague topic difficult to argue and may lead to confusion later in the debate. Pro's arguments I) In this argument, you are basically saying just because the Contender can, he/she must set the grounds for the debate. If the Instigator comes on this website and wishes to argue something, the Contender should know what they are going up against. If the Contender wanted to start the arguments, he would've started the debate himself. II) This website was created for debaters to properly debate, not just to bulk up our profiles off bogus debating. If I wanted to bulk up my profile by debating like a weasel, I could just as easily cheat; but I don't want to have to tell the Instigator "it doesn't matter if that's what you meant," because I want a good, clean debate. I think most people on this site would agree that it's better to lose in a good debate than to win a stupid one. III) This is an argument that could easily just be solved on the Pro side. If the Instigator were to start the debate, even with a brief statement giving their argument, it would avoid any possible "darkness" the Contender may have. Yes, it is possible to reject a debate, but why should we? It's the fault of the Instigator and it would make the website better if every debate in the challenge period were properly explained. By the Instigator simply explaining themselves or giving their argument, we would be making for a better debate and that is why I believe the Instigator should always set the ground for a debate.
The Instigator should always set the ground for a debate

I will argue that: "Sometimes the Contender should set the ground for debating. " (That statement negates Pro's contention. ) My positive argument: Some Instigators are prepared to argue any portion of a topic, and so they allow the Contender to choose a specific area of focus. This saves the Instigator the work of outlining all the possible interpretations of the topic in his first post,and allows the Contender to choose the interpretation s/he is most comfortable with. Responses to Pro's arguments: i) There are sometimes topics that are very specific, as for eg. , "Resolved: the US federal Government should submit to the jurisdiction of ICC. ", or, "The US Federal Government should legalize abortion. " The intent of both of these topics is patently obvious to most people; hence, Contender can satisfactorily negate them and set up desired grounds. ii) If the Instigator at a later time resorts to "this is what I meant", the Contender can say: "You didn't specify it earlier, and I have already set the definitions for this debate. You were given a fair chance, and you missed it. Any attempts to change definitions now would be a good reason to vote Con! " Thus, the Contender can use topic vagueness to his own advantage, by setting up definitions that favor him! iii) Contenders know what they're getting into when they enter a debate. If they're too "in the dark" about the meaning of the resolution, they can reject the topic. So Contenders suffer no harms because of topic vagueness, because they enter the debate only if they like it.
The Instigator should always set the ground for a debate

In any debate, the Instigator should be the one to set the ground for debating. By this, I mean no one should start a debate and say "I will let my opponent start." The topic is usually broad, for example, let's say "Abortion." By making his stance Pro, does he mean that he's for legalizing abortion or is he saying that he's for abortion in the instance of rape and incest only. When I join a debate, I want to know what I'm getting into in the first place and not being surprised when they respond by saying, "this is what I meant." Even if someone is willing to argue against all aspects of a topic, they should at least explain themselves instead of leaving any possible opponent in the dark. Thank you
I (Mostlogical) should commit suicide

As usual I'll sum up my points, and answer any remaining questions. I don't believe in God or a higher purpose. By committing suicide I will be able to choose my last words, be remembered forever in a good way and help others to believe in mankind's greatest achievement. If I can't go to Mars I will try to get crushed by an elevator door i.e. test its safety and thus prevent someone else from dying who wishes to see the world. My family would know they have done or said nothing wrong, and feel proud of me.
I (Mostlogical) should commit suicide

I do not believe in God because I know what happens when I die and why I'm here etc. I could never tell anyone the truth though because it would ruin someone's day. Anyway, one of my exciting ideas is to go on the 'Mars One mission'. Once I reach the planet Mars I'll take my helmet off, become the first man to breathe Martian air, and I'll say these famous last words whilst pointing upwards: "The sky, it's, it's Blue". One in four Britons today don't believe the moon landings ever happened [1]. I could just say what I see when I remove my helmet so those disbelievers believe in mankinds greatest achievement, but I won't because then I'd be remembered forvever as an idiot. Instead I'll be their hero - the man who throwed his life away to confirm their belief. You might think my death would actually prove I travelled to an inhospitable planet but I'm pretty sure they'd think NASA killed me. Below is a picture of what looks like the first gravestone, it has been shown little respect. However I have a feeling that a lot of people who have been called a loon will want to show the whole world that they were right and will thus build an enmorous statue of me on the very spot I die. http://www.alamy.com...People who commit suicide can choose their last words either in writing or verbally, basically be remembered in the way they like. If that wasn't important people on death row wouldn't be given a chance to say any final last words like ones in my source [2]. I don't want my last word to be "hello" or "help me". My backup idea encase I live when I take my helmet off is to try and kill myself by elevator. Here's a couple of pictures that gave me the idea:http://www.monzy.com...http://www.thedailypedia.com...Sensors are prone to malfunction, and it is advised to treat elevators with caution, for example avoiding them when there is a fire. Although elevators are safer than cars an average of 26 people die in elevators each year in the U.S. In comparision there are 26 car deaths every five hours [3] however think about how much longer people spend in their car and how many more car journeys they make! Killing myself via testing the safety of elevators will prevent someone else from dying.sources:[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] http://viewmixed.com...[3] http://gizmodo.com...
I (Mostlogical) should commit suicide

This debate forms round 2 of the Outlaw Tournament by Wlyted. I Pro will argue why I should commit suicide while my opponent Con will argue why I shouldn't commit suicde.It seems no-one will accept unless they know something about me, perhaps they are worried I am making a serious debate or think I have a good reason to commit suicide. I am looking for a strong opponent who strongly opposes suicide. If you think you have good arguments, are 18+ and have completed a few debates please accept. I promise I will not make anything up about my health e.g. say I'm terminally ill, deaf and blind, in a vegetative state etcRound structureR1: Acceptance onlyR2: Arguments R3: Arguments R4: ArgumentsR5: Conclusion - no new arguments Rules:No forfeits, Burdon of proof (BoP) is shared, rebutals are allowed, no new sources in last roundGood luck Con!
Ban Human Cloning

P1: Actually, there are ways for scientists to do research, improve on the process, and increase their success rate and that is through the continued testing using animal embryos, just like they have been doing. This is a process that is still new in the scientific world and the fact remains that they simply do not know enough about cloning as a whole, which leads to the conclusion that no human testing should occur with a success rate as low as less than 1%. P2: Numerous sources would disagree with you on the front that the loss of gene diversity would be a non issue. For instance theecologist.org stated "cloning allowed the rapid spread of 'irreversible' genetic diseases," another source, the councilforresponsiblegenetics.org noted that cloning would "eradicate genetic variety," and britannica.com stated that cloning has "led to major losses of genetic diversity" and that is just a few of the examples. The fact that natural reproduction would continue gene diversity is nothing but a red herring here, the true issues remain that the use of cloning lessens diversity and increases disease susceptibility. P3: Right now, human cloning would destroy more embryonic stem cells than it would create, once again, a fact supported by a less than 1% success rate. From an embryonic stem cell research perspective, to allow cloning would be detrimental and irresponsible as countless viable embryonic stem cells would be unusable for the betterment of others or for use in stem cell research. Furthermore, it still does not address the huge issue of creating human life just to kill it for the use of others. C: Therefore, human cloning should be banned due to its low success rate, numerous and detrimental unknowns, the fact that it would reduce gene diversity and increase the likelihood of the spread of disease, and is counterproductive to stem cell research.
Ban Human Cloning

p1: Because there are lack of understanding and knowledge on the human cloning, if we ban the human cloning, there would be no way for scientists to do research and study, which may eventually increase the success rate and eliminate the negative effects. p2: Unless very human reproduction process is taken over by human cloning, it is unlikely that the lose of gene diversity would become the issue. Natural human reproduction will still reproduces newborns with different genes. p3:right now, the rate of making embryonic stem cells is not very high because we are still in the beginning of this type of technology. Allowing human cloning would help scientists to do more research about the subject. Embryonic stem cell has the great benefit in medical use. Liver failure, kidney failure, and ever cancers would be able to cure, if we would be able to produce more embryonic stem cell. http://www.humancloning.org... C: Human cloning should not be ban. It is beneficial to every human health, and save so many lives.
Ban Human Cloning

P1: It isn't a fear of negative effects, there ARE negative effects. They are tangible and very real, not merely some irrational feeling or emotion. What scientist are engaging in, in spite of their blatant lack understanding and knowledge on the subject, which has lead to such a low success rate, would cause the death of numerous, viable human embryos and fetuses. For example, using the current success rate, for every 200 embryos used to try and clone a person, only 1 cloned human might be produced. (http://www.deepscience.com...) At the moment scientist simply do not know enough about cloning to begin testing on humans, which is clear due to their lack of success. P2: I will correct myself, human cloning would caused the production of beings with the same genes, which allows for the easier spread disease, the continuing of hereditary issues, and the easier spread of pathogens due to the lose of gene diversity and a lessened ability for people to adapt. But, the fact remains that cloning creates carbon copies of organisms, right down to the gene level. Ergo, they are exactly the same and when something is the same they are not different, therefore gene diversity is lessened, which means that if the original person is effective from a disease or suffers from some sort of genetic disorder or abnormality so to will the clone. Therefore, diseases and hereditary health issues will increase with cloning. (http://library.thinkquest.org...) P3: The use of cloning to make embryonic stem cells is wrong on a number of levels which tie into previously discussed failings of cloning. For starters, because of the less than 1% success rate of cloning the process itself would be detrimental to the production of stem cells as this would lead to the death of the original embryo and no cloned embryo. Furthermore, the use of cloned embryos for their stems cells destroys the embryo, which is morally and ethically wrong as this is a death sentence with no trail, no jury, and no defense to an organism that will develop into a human being. (http://www.cirm.ca.gov...) I cannot think of something more wrong than to develop an embryo, that could one day live a life, merely to kill it and harvest its parts for the betterment of others. C: Human cloning should be banned because of the negative effects caused by our lack of knowledge of the process and outcomes, the negative effect it would have on the population's ability to fight diseases, the fact that it would more easily cause the continuation of the spread of hereditary ailments, and the moral and ethical dilemmas of using it for stem cell research.
Ban Human Cloning

p1: What scientists do is to explore the unknown. We can just ban human cloning simply because there are too many unknown and the fear of negative effects. p2: Allow human cloning does not necessarily makes everybody end up with the same genes because it would not just completely replace the natural human reproduction process. Therefore, it won't allows for the easier spread of diseases. [Pro's premise 2 may contain a strawman fallacy. Human cloning may cause some people to have the same genes, but it is very unlikely that everyone would have the same genes.] p3. Human cloning can use to produces embryonic stem cells, which can cure so many diseases that are uncureable. And "embryonic stem cells are uniquely poised to become any cell in the body...if scientists could make these stem cells...once-untreatable conditions could perhaps be cured by replacing damaged cells with healthy ones" (https://www.sciencenews.org...) C: Therefore, we should not ban human cloning.
Ban Human Cloning

Background: Human cloning is essentially the scientific manufacturing of an artificial twin of a person who is or was alive. This is accomplished by taking tissue from the original person and growing it into another human being during the natural reproduction process. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) P1: The biggest issue with human cloning is that there are simply too many unknowns with the process and outcome and negative effects regarding our lack of knowledge. For instance, Dr. Griffin, the man responsible for the cloned sheep Dolly, stated "there are dozens of unknowns with even sheep [and] there are certainly going to be vastly more with humans." And the effects of this are devastating and far reaching. An example of which is the cloning technique success rate, which is less than 1%, which appears to be a constant success rate among cloning attempts. (http://www.deepscience.com...) And the effects of science's lack of knowledge continue as cloning has resulted in the "death of many embryos and newborns" and no assurance that the clone will develop in a natural manor. (http://library.thinkquest.org...) P2: Another major drawback to cloning is that it leaves everyone with the same genes, which allows for the easier spread of diseases and other issues. This decrease in gene diversity leads to the weaken of "adaptations, which make us subjected to great diseases [more] easily." In other words, the differences that give some of us the ability to fight or end diseases would not be present putting the population at risk of losing massive amounts of people due to disease and other pathogens. Another extension to this is the negative effects of inbreeding, which includes the continuance of the spread of diseases among families as well as a higher population of disease barring subjects. (http://library.thinkquest.org...) C: Because of the effects of the unknowns with cloning and the effects the lack of gene diversity will cause human cloning should be banned.
Ban Human Cloning

p1: Before scientists doing cloning experiment on human, they did it with animals. Since, there is a success on animal cloning, as evidenced by Dolly the sheep, Human cloning should be what scientists really focus on rather than keep doing experiment using animal. p2: As I stated earlier, the main purpose of human cloning is to produce stem cells that could cure so many diseases that are currently untreatable. Loss of gene diversity would only be a issue when cloning reproduction took over the natural reproduction. If we only limit human cloning for medical purpose. It would actually be a pro-life technology for women who are not able to have children. p3: Not only for the diseases, human cloning technology can also be use to faster the recovery times or healing time by cloning injured person's own cells, still good for medicinal purpose. C: Therefore, Human cloning should not be banned.
Leftists are not Postmodernists

& vice versa, if you look carefully, I am not saying that Cuba and Vietnam have entirely successful governmental systems: rather, that they have had some successes. I just thought you were being too readily dismissive of Marxist theory. And how we measure the success of a nation is an entirely different debate. I'm not too convinced that we can judge them by using the criterion of capitalism (though Vietnam has still been successful in this regards). Dr.Peterson can be quite insightful, but here he presents his worldview and interpretations on texts as opposed to the theory of these texts themselves (evident in some of his lectures which only loosely-relate to those he is lecturing on)... In the video you sent, he is basically performing for a public audience. He simply gives his opinions without providing a strong argument or evidence that directly supports them. If you're accepting his views just based on such material (which I'm not suggesting you, personally, are), that isn't good enough. Go read the texts. One of his slogans is "the data is quite clear on this": be sceptical of anyone who claims to be the singular mouthpiece for any current empirical research. Overall, it hasn't been clear what you've been arguing. You abandoned the notion that the radical left aren't a development of postmodernism, for you saw that they were just taking further the precepts of classic postmodernist theory. You called these 'radical postmodernists'. Then, you argued that 'radical postmodernist theory' is incompatible with postmodernism, despite it clearly stemming from it. When, in actual fact, postmodernist theory is still being written in support of what Dr.Peterson is sceptical on citing classical texts, like the proliferation of labels in the LGBT movement and re-centring of discourse on identity politics. If your argument is simply: modern postmodernists have gone beyond the classical texts, well then duh... It's been 50 years. Who are these moderates you defend? Comment