BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Common Core and similar programs are inhibiting the learning capacity of the American Population

I accept the challenge, It will be my contention for this debate that Common core is furthering Education standards and providing need stability to an education system that is too disorganized and dysfunctional as is. It is necessary for us, in the United states to take an active role in enforcing science literacy and factual information in our education curriculum. While I will acknowledge that Common core and other efforts like it are not with out their short comings; it is definite that Common core and other efforts like it are superior to the state of education in the U.S. which preceded them. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Random Student Drug Testing

Yes it does assume all students are guilty. When you were in high school, how many students did drugs? Quite a few. Probably more did it than not. I'm sure a few students wouldn't mind being tested when they were innocent, if the knew that the guilty were going to be caught. The random tests strike fear into the students. Yes it's true teens say "Oh, I won't get caught." Once one student gets caught and expelled, they won't be saying that much longer. The random tests are a perfect use of money. They are efficient and it is the quickest way to catch large groups of culprits at once. Sounds to me that that is the perfect way to go about it; strike fear into them and easily mass test all the students.
Random Student Drug Testing

We need to fight drug use among teens, make no mistake Random drug testing is a wrong way to go about it, morally and practically. In practical terms, it fails. Teens are infamous for assuming nothing bad will happen to them ("Sure, some people get caught, but I won't"). Plus, they ALREADY HAVE a bigger chance of getting caught than randomly at school: They could get caught in the act, someone could smell smoke off them, see their extremely red eyes, or see them acting violently, and so on Millions of dollars are wasted in random testing, which is ineffective, and those dollars could go toward more effective methods. Reasonable suspicion testing is a far better way to go about it. We can handle this problem in one of two ways. The first way holds the students using drugs accountable for their own actions. The irresponsible, reckless groups of students who endanger others are held accountable and punished or rehabilitated accordingly. The administrators handle the reckless students and leave the innocent students alone. The second way treats all students as if they are that irresponsible, reckless group, and random drug testing does that. Trusting relationships are a great deterrent to drug use, and actually strike at the root cause. Random testing tells students not to trust administrators, and it tells the students that they themselves can't be trusted, and are guilty unless they prove their innocence. If you come to school under the influence of drugs, then absolutely the school should test you. In a random system, the school would be precluded from getting to you quickly enough, because they can't single anyone out. The school is looking for needles in a haystack, and all random testing does is pile on more hay. Under reasonable suspicion, they could test you on the spot because you are demonstrating the symptoms. Under the logic of random testing, we should pull over random cars for a Breathalyzer test and not take into account whether they are showing symptoms of DUI. Under reasonable suspicion, we pull over those who are showing symptoms of DUI, and leave the innocent drivers alone. The innocent drivers aren't inconvenienced, the drunk drivers get tested and punished, everyone gets protected Isn't the Constitution great?
Random Student Drug Testing

Random drug testing in schools should be allowed. These children are going to be our lawyers and doctors. Do you want them to be potheads? No. Random drug testing will be very effective. If you go to a school, you have to obey the laws and the school rules and no law or school lets you use drugs. Keeping the laws under control by random tests will be effective. It puts fear in to the children. Hopefully, enough fear where they won't go to drugs at all. Drugs are a massive problem in society today. Millions of dollars are lost every year due to drug crimes. If children are taught early and punished they're less likely to do it later. Not only does it keep drugs out of our schools, it shows the children later in life that they will face drug tests anyways. I don't want druggies in my schools. Random tests busts them in the act then they get kicked out of school. Good. They're wasting my tax dollars anyways. Go sit at home and waste your life on pot. If you come to school under the influence of drugs, it's then a school problem. Random tests will be effective. I'm sure the minimal interference of rights of privacy won't outweigh the less trouble schools have to go through using drugs. In fact it's not invading their rights of privacy at all. Once your on school jurisdiction, they are free to test you.
Random Student Drug Testing

So under your logic, if 70% are guilty and 30% are innocent, then it's okay to treat everyone like they are that 70%. I'm sorry, but I live in a country that that's better than that. We should hold that 70% accountable for their actions and leave the 30% alone. Innocent students DO mind being tested. Pulling someone out of class to urinate in a bottle in front of an administrator is highly intrusive. I would have minded. It's not appropriate to take away my privacy over what someone else might do or has done University of Michigan did a study about the impact of random drug testing. They found no difference in the number of students who use drugs in any category in schools with random drug testing and those without. The one exception is this: they found in schools that randomly test students, 12th graders are MORE likely to smoke marijuana while all other drug use is constant. In THEORY, like you're trying to argue, it would result in people going from marijuana to harder drugs because marijuana hangs around for weeks while harder drugs exit the body quickly. But in PRACTICE, marijuana use went up. Neither result is what we want Go do some research on schools that have random testing, don't just hypothesize. It's been tried and it hasn't worked. Many schools that once resorted to it have opted to change direction. They are not the quickest way to catch large groups of culprits. As I said, it actually PREVENTS schools from testing suspicious students quickly enough. Reasonable suspicion testing is a far better way to go I'll end with the quotation, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." Just like communism, random testing only works in theory. In practice, it's disastrous
Should Students Be Allowed to Pick their own Classes?(Basic Classes Still Mandatory)

Counterplan text: the 50 States of the United States of America should substantially increase the freedom of choice students get within the generic courses of Math, English, Science, History, The Arts, as well as any other courses.The Net Benefit is ensured education. Giving students total choice over their education gives them the possibility of forfeiting the classes they hate-- say Math-- when really it is key for them to be good and productive citizens. Mandating any math class, but enabling students to pick a math class, solves because it gives the students to pursue a specific portion of math, while ensuring the education they need to succeed.
Christian Church Denominations should be aboilished

I think Denominations do more harm than good. First, they divide people on lines of loyalty to a specific leader. They take what the particular leader for granted without examining the words on a deeper level, as is seen in churches like West Borough Baptist Church and similar, Secondly, when a person or church does bring up disagreements with the leader, the church face legal problems because the denomination owns the church and will cut support if they make waves. I think churches should not have any state/national/ or international leader because it encourages people to look and examine theology for themselves
Christian Church Denominations should be aboilished

OK first of all a question. do you want all christian church denominations gone? if so good because that's what i'm basing my argument off of. secondly no they should not be abolished for what reason? america (Europe/Canada i don't know about) has a freedom of speech and religion law as the first amendment so even if we should we can't. although some denominations have views that are generally frowned upon ie. westboro baptist church for the most part who cares what you believe in as long as you dont get hurt or they dont hurt others their fine
BLEACH DEBATE: Ichigo Kurosaki is better with Rukia Kuchiki then he is with Inoue Orihime.

Rukia Kuckiki would be better as a fighting partner than a girlfriend. Whereas Orihime can't fight really well because her ability revolves around healing more than fighting. "We see him travel to a different realm, I think would be the suited way to describe the different places in the Bleach universe. We see him take down ridiculously hard opponents, we see him push himself beyond what he was originally capable of." I believe that this argument is flawed because he only travels to Gotei 13 where the captians live to save Rukia whereas to save Orihime he travels Hueco Mindo which is the realm of the hollows where he has to fight opponents that are far stronger than the captains of Gotei 13. Although he doesn't get stronger by much he learns to control his inner hollow which makes him stronger in a way other than swinging his sword. By the end of the Arc Orihime's love for him brings him back to life in a new even more powerful hollow form with which he uses to utterly annihilate Ulquiorra with. His love for Rukia pushed him to his limits and beyond to learn his bankai but Orihime's love for him brought him back to life and made him stronger than he ever was in the first arc where he saves rukia. Orihime also loves cooking and house cleaning which would be a great thing for ichigo as he doesn't cook or clean he relies on his little sister to cook and clean the house. Orihime would be the perfect fit for Ichigo. "I am stating this because throughout the series they are shown to have a deeper connection that goes beyond words, beyond emotions, they interact in such a way that could be classed as beautiful." This statement could also be used for the movie Memories of a nobody with which Ichigo and Senna also have a connection that goes beyond words and emotions but also beyond time itself after Senna dies.
BLEACH DEBATE: Ichigo Kurosaki is better with Rukia Kuchiki then he is with Inoue Orihime.

Rukia Kuchiki would be more suited than Inoue Orihime to be Ichigo's girlfriend. I am stating this because throughout the series they are shown to have a deeper connection that goes beyond words, beyond emotions, they interact in such a way that could be classed as beautiful. During the first arc we witness Ichigo fall head over heels in love with Rukia, we see him develop a bond and a need to be with her. We see him travel to a different realm, I think would be the suited way to describe the different places in the Bleach universe. We see him take down ridiculously hard opponents, we see him push himself beyond what he was originally capable of. I personally adore Ichigo and Rukia together.
BLEACH DEBATE: Ichigo Kurosaki is better with Rukia Kuchiki then he is with Inoue Orihime.

Actually, being brought up in a somewhat medieval japan and also being a part of a noble family would require her to learn skills like precision, patience and other virtues that most "regular" people lack. Ichigo has been noted to have a fast recovery speed and even though he does regularly take massive amounts of damage. Rukia is also a healer, like Orihime, she may not be able to heal as quickly, but she can also fight back against an attacker if ichigo is in trouble. As a technicality, I would like to note that Rukia was guaranteed to be executed, unlike Orihime. Ichigo got the ability to use a bankai in 2.5 days, on the other hand it took him a much larger time to achieve control over his inner hollow. Many of the opponents Ichigo encounters in Hueco Mundo aren't actually stronger then the captains of the Gotei 13, all but two of the Espada were defeated by Captain-class or weaker shinigami. Those two being defeated by Ichigo, 6th and the 4th. The 3rd Espada may have beaten her opponents however, she was defeated by Aizen. It also isn't stated as to whether the Hollow form Ichigo is there because Orihime begged him, that may just be a coincidence. Unfortunately, Orihimes love for Ichigo is never shown to go both ways, it may just be unrequited love. We probably will never know. Orihime may love to cook and clean, but does this mean Ichigo would want her to do that for him, does that mean he would want her to put all her effort into caring about his well being. Ichigo is constantly showed to not care about himself and protect others instead. Rukia, is someone that will help Ichigo fight and help him mature as he grows stronger. Orihime would be more like his maid or his nurse or something like that. However, in the movie Memories Of A Nobody, Senna is made up of different memories of different people, she could have memories of anyone that has died. Senna is also not one that is being debated upon. Rukia and Ichigo share a strong connection, that is probably stronger then his bond with any other character he has ever encountered throughout the entirety of the series. For this reason I think Rukia is a much better fit to be the partner of Ichigo Kurosaki.
April PFD Topic

Let's not resort to Pathos based claims on emotion. I do not deny the fact that there are people dying in the status quo; I accept this as a truth statement. However, the fact remains that we do not have the money to fund this; Does this mean that we couldn't offer other non-financial incentives? No, it does not! We are debate the ethics of offer financial incentives to encourage donation; something My opponent has yet to cover. He offers the truth that I've already agreed to, but his conclusion of offering these financial incentives is non-sequitar. He simply says -people are dying, so why not-? Also we have to take notice that the argument my opponent presents is not something that has any kind of negative impact on the Con; the only harm he presents, death, is inevitable anyway. He doesn't solve for the harm he presents, nor does he prove that financial incentives would change the status quo. I urge a Con ballot.
April PFD Topic

Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. Statically speaking 36 people have died waiting for an organ from the time con posted his argument and I have replied that number will only increase as our debate continues. Roughly 18 people will die each day waiting for an organ; of course this number is low as we are only counting those fortunate enough to make it on the US waiting list of over 110,500 people [1] The simple fact is the demand for organs out strips the supply. The current system of barring financial incentives for organ donation is killing people at worst, or letting them die at best. If financial incentives can increase the supply of organs thus saving lives how can we not vote PRO? http://www.organdonor.gov...
The sun is the main cause of global warming

Good luck, I completely disagree with you. The sun does not cause global warming, even though it is a part of it. Global warming happens because of pollution. One kind of pollution is electrical pollution. Electricity causes pollution in many ways, some worse than others. In most cases, fossil fuels are burned to create electricity. When we throw our garbage away, it also causes global warming because the garbage goes to landfills. If you recycle, less trash goes to the dump, and less trash gets burned. As a result, there are fewer greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Also, the greenhouse gases of cars can cause global warming. It is mainly our faults that global warming happens. Why do we need factories? Oh right for nothing. Chocolate are made in them. What do we need chocolate for when we have healthy vegetables? They also produce dolls. What do we need dolls for? Oh right just for simple plain entertainment. Its just obsurd.
The sun is the main cause of global warming

No semantics or trolling, this is to be a honest debate with serious attitudes. I would usually argue pro, but I am devils advocating. I argue the sun is not the main reason for current climate change, my opponent argues the sun is the main reason for current climate change. Current global warming is from the last century, though data from before then is welcomed as evidence as long as it relates to the now. 1st round acceptance. good luck!
The sun is the main cause of global warming

I dont know if my opponent gave up, if she did I hope she argues next round "I give up". Thank you for agreeing with me though :) I said devils advocate, I might have had a typo. That means where you argue the side you disagree with, I argued against my beliefs. As I argued against my beliefs I devils advocated, I was hoping you could argue that the sun had an effect, but I suspect you prefer not to do so. As this is the case a CON vote is warranted.
Interplanetary space invaders exist.

hawtguyluvu Many people are familiar with the prophecies of Nostradamus, however, few are familiar with the works of his younger brother Pete. While Nostradamus is so often credited with the predictions of major travesties like the reign of Hitler or the Kennedy assassination, Pete"s prophecies, while stunningly accurate, are substantially less impressive as they accurately depict very mundane features of modern life. The most common example academics typically point to is this quatrain: "The small Deborah fills the Danish with paste. " Most recognize this as the foresight of a cr"me filled Little Debbie snack. However, there are dissenters, small groups believe that this quatrain refers to an early episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" where Ray"s wife Deborah attempts to make a dessert. Still there is a handful of historians that believe this was a premonition referring to an invasion of Denmark led by the German General D. Borha, this makes sense because General Borha led an abnormally pale group of pasty white infantry, also, they glued all of the POW"s mouths shut with Elmer"s school paste. Perhaps the most impressive of Pete"s foretelling comes from his work titled People will love Regis Philbin, and other predictions, from the future. in quatrains 4-9: The boss rises to the dusk, but is without words He will return in the dawn and rest with similar sentiments Weary is the boss, weary and disinterested with himself He will be in need of assistance. The boss will be unable to ignite an inferno devoid of a flash The weaponry will be employable despite the boss rollicking in a place without light. This passage is particularly notable because Pete seems to author the first verse and chorus of "Dancing in the Dark" by Bruce Springsteen almost a half millennium before Springsteen popularized the song. These are perhaps the most impressive of his predictions, but they are just the beginning of a seemingly limitless list of prognostications. For instance, quatrain 12 "The men of light red hue are named Floyd and harmonize as light erupts through the artificial sky," is almost certainly in reference to the popularity of laser light shows in planetariums set to a Pink Floyd soundtrack. Another hotly debated verse: "The four will be apprehended based on biblical law, former friends will turn on them, and they will be imprisoned. " This was originally accepted as a prediction of the four man plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln and other high ranking officials, the biblical law being "Thou Shalt Not Kill. " However, most experts now agree that this was foretelling the finale episode of Seinfeld, where the four main characters are captured for breaking the "Good Samaritan" law and former characters from the show testify against them until they are thrown in jail.
The sale of cigarettes should be banned

Like I said about 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure each year, that is far from victimless. Not to mention thanks to smokers I personally will never be able to rent an apartment or enter largely populated areas commonly, thanks to extreme sensitivity to smell and smoking. The idea of banning cigarettes is to keep people from getting into them in the first place, the moment someone first smokes, they're hooked. It is no longer truly a personal choice it is an addiction, a mental illness. It wastes victims money while outright killing them. That isn't right in any form of the word, it's like making someone pay to break their leg. I'm not advising punishing the smokers, though perhaps requiring rehab would be nice, it also might overwhelm the systems. I'm punishing the people taking advantage of and abusing the mentally ill for monetary gain.
The sale of cigarettes should be banned

I've no reason to ban the sale of cigarettes -- I believe that victimless crimes are okay to a certain extent. Some 42 million people smoke cigarettes, it's almost impossible to just ban them out of the blue -- it's extremely addicting and would provide headway for an underground or blackmarket sales system. I'd rather them ban public smoking, littering via cigarettes, excessive smoking with or around children, etc. I think it is okay to hurt yourself as long as you don't hurt others. To do this, just increase the penalties for indecent smoking. Banning cigarette sales is good in theory, but would undoubtedly be horribly executed and would provide a more chaotic and irritable society.
The sale of cigarettes should be banned

Selling cigarettes means causing and then abusing mental illness, after the first cigarette no more choice is truly involved after that point. Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year, and about 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure each year. Lets just put an end to this by attacking the source, sellers of tobacco products should be charged for an assault for every cigarette sale, and if a client dies from something related to the smoking habit, the seller should be charged with manslaughter. This will give us a healthier and more pleasant country to live in.