BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschooling is better than public schooling

To be in a public school allows students to be up to speed with our exact level of intelligence. We get plenty of social time, and we get to be in a comfortable environment. There aren't any distractions, because distractions aren't allowed. We have consequences if we don't get our work done, like detention. Which means we don't get to go home when all of our friends do. Nobody likes that. We get taught everything we need to know, and much more.. My sources.. are my experience.
Homeschooling is better than public schooling

Now, the first point I would like to discuss is peer pressure. Being in public schools, children have much peer-pressure. This can lead to many bad choices, such as drugs or premature sex. It's a sad, but true fact. Homeschooling, you are not around as many adolecents. Many people would consider this a disatvantage, however it is not so. There are many social outlets without having the negative influences. One also becomes much closer to the parents and has a better relationship in the family. There are many, MANY myths about homeschoolers that have proven to be just what they are. .. myths. One myth is that homeschoolers have no friends. That is not true. We, being homeschoolers, have many friends. Many of us attend sports or choir. Others go to church or co-ops where they can have social interaction. Just because someone's homeschooled, doesn't mean they have no friends. . http://www.youtube.com...Homeschooling allows students to be taught in a positive invironment. Also, according to the Acedemic Statistics on Homeschooling, many studies have uncovered that, on average, homeschoolers' outpreform their peers. One reason for this may be that homeschoolers get one-on-one tutoring. They experience higher level subjects earlier. Another reason may be because they can move on from one subject to the next. They don't have to wait on other students. . http://www.raisesmartkid.com... Homeschooling allows certain disabilities to be better addressed. Many students struggle in certain areas where the teacher can't help them. The parents will be able to better asses the problem and fix it. This futher educates the child. Many students are kinesthetic and cannot bear to sit down for 8 hours. Homeschooling allows them to move around in the comfort of their home while doing school. . http://school.familyeducation.com... That brings me on to my final point. Homeschoolers do school at home. This allows them to be more comfortable when doing tests. They aren't thinking about all the other people in the room. They are focused on the work they are doing. This results in better grades.
The title of this debate has the word "of" in it.

The order is: 2 Offcase, 1 Oncase.First, the Debate.org DisadvantageUniqueness: There are a resonable amount of debates that aren't troll debates, and in which serious people debate. [1] This is good for education since people have to really think about real world issues in answering their opponent's topics. But this good education happens ONLY IF REASONABLE DEBATES ARE MADE.Link: Debates which have no real meaning get added into the DDO challenge room, such as this very debate, and qualify as "troll" debatess. The definition of "troll" as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is to "Make a deliberately offensive or provocativeonline post with the aim of upsetting someone oreliciting an angry response from them:" [2]Internal Link: These useless debates make people unhappy with the website because it's full of trolls, thus get off the site.Impact: This kills the good education that was talked about in the Uniqueness. Education outweighs, as it is the most immediate result of debate.Next, CounterplanCP Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its passage and enforcement of its gun control legislature. The net benefit is the Debate.org DA. Gun control is a controversial topic, thus forces people to research the topic in order to make better arguments, thus get more votes in rounds. That's good for education since people are learning more about gun control.Next, CaseYes, it is clear that there is "of" in the title. But it's one thing to have it, then to use it. The pro's case advocates for mere decorative words, rather than actually using it. This kills education since we're not using the words for what they really mean. Reject this "case", embrace the CP. Vote Con.Sources: http://www.debate.org... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The title of this debate has the word "of" in it.

If I came accross as regarding the pro as a troll, my apologies. I never encountered this kind of a debate before.Unfortunately, the pro has undisputable points. His title DOES have "of" in it, education be damned. Thus, I regretfully submit a FORFEITURE to this debate. http://www.simplywoman.com...;Nevertheless, there is some education coming from this debate for you voters who soon will condemn me on "ff": never underestimate a debater by his proposed topic.
The title of this debate has the word "of" in it.

Although Con is arguing a point, he is not arguing the point that I have requested someone argue against me. In fact, I do not think Con even realizes what the debates topic is. I will use this URL as a link for proof, as my point is proven in the title of the debate. "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its passage and enforcement of its gun control legislature. The net benefit is the Debate.org DA. Gun control is a controversial topic, thus forces people to research the topic in order to make better arguments, thus get more votes in rounds. That's good for education since people are learning more about gun control." This has nothing to do with this debate, so it is null in the given context. "Internal Link: These useless debates make people unhappy with the website because it's full of trolls, thus get off the site. Impact: This kills the good education that was talked about in the Uniqueness. Education outweighs, as it is the most immediate result of debate." ? This has nothing to do with the Debate, and Con has failed to provide resources and proof that he is indeed right in the word "of" Is not in the title. He has liked some "Yes, it is clear that there is "of" in the title. But it's one thing to have it, then to use it. The pro's case advocates for mere decorative words, rather than actually using it. This kills education since we're not using the words for what they really mean. Reject this "case", embrace the CP. Vote Con." Con refutes his own point right here, and failed to even read the title before posting his argument. "But it's one thing to have it, then to use it. The pro's case advocates for mere decorative words, rather than actually using it." Actually, I do use the word "of" in the title, twice, actually! I will prove it! "The title of this debate has the word "of" in it." : In this sentence, which happens to be the title, I use the the word "of" in the genitive case, making the ownership of the title go to the debate itself. There is actually two cases of the word "of" in the title, and it is impossible to refute. http://www.debate.org... The only evidence I need, beside the definition of the word "of" to prove that I used it properly. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Instead of saying "Vote Pro!" I'm going to say vote for whoever provided the most sufficient proof of their point, and remember that there are two more chances for Con to change his argument.
I don't think coffee baristas should get tipped

School teachers, electricians and plumbers all make 5-10 times what a barista makes so no you shouldn't tip them unless you are feeling particularly generous you could donate to the education system. If you are ok with using a tip jar then what is the big difference with the machine? At least with the machine they can see that you gave them a dollar but the tip jar a dollar could be a nickel because they didn't see it and wouldn't know the difference. Like I said in my first argument; Everyone is using plastic and carrying around less coin these days resulting in far fewer tips for baristas. Baristas don"t expect tips, they hope for them and sometimes if they can put a smile on your face they get one. The machine just provides a means for that hope to continue because the jar is becoming extinct.
I don't think coffee baristas should get tipped

Nowadays they have machines that do all the coffee making for them. They aren't labouring any more then any othet job that gets no tips. Should I tip my kids teacher at school? Should I tip the plumber and electrician? Where do you draw the line? I am ok with the jar as I said. Throw pocket change in. As far as prompting me for a tip and then them watching when receipt is printing and making me feel guilty I don't like. I am not saying I never like to tip. If I am very happy with the service etc. I will and do more often then not. My point is I don't believe it should be a prompt on a machine to do so. Stick with the jar.
I don't think coffee baristas should get tipped

Establishments such as Mcdonalds have strict policies against accepting gifts. They aren"t rewarded for good service, they are just expected to give it all of the time. They also make minimum wage at mcdonalds which can"t be said for most coffee shops. Baristas depend on those tips to make minimum wage. I can"t say I eat at Mcdonalds often but when I go I am usually faced with an emotionless face and standard service. At most coffee shops I good personable service that leaves me with a smile (one of my tipping incentives). If you prefer the service at Mcdonalds you could always get a mc cafe there.
I don't think coffee baristas should get tipped

Tipping coffee shops and many services has been around for a long time and provides a means for young adults, students or just hard-working people trying to make ends meet . Now that most people use plastic to pay for pretty much everything tipping has reduced .This reduction in tipping has resulted in lower incomes for service industry workers. I agree that some people like yourself might find the electronic tip prompt somewhat intrusive but take a moment to think how much more convenient your life is now that you don't have to manage coins and bills. Is it really that inconvenient to press the no tip button? If you're actually feeling generous you just need to press 2 more buttons. It's still just a tip and personally I only tip for one of the following reasons 1. I get good service 2. I get a nice smile 3. I can afford it. If it makes you feel bad by pressing the no tip button after you buy something then you could always just pay with cash.
is a lancer evo better than a dodge charger

Charger hellcat. It's going to be very hard to argue with all 707 of those ponies. Even if you want to get away from HP for one second and look at the "normal" top model which is the SRT8. You are still running a half second slower 0-60 time in the EVO and almost a full second slower than the hellcat. The Evo 160 top speed vs the 175 in the SRT8 and over 200 in the hellcat. So right there we are looking at better acceleration, and better top speed out of the dodge camp.
Video Gamers are all pathetic cheatrs today

You have only speculated that the majority of the gamers that said they never cheated before actually lied. Of course, There is a big possibility that at least a small margin of them cheated, But you can't assume that less than 2% of the gamers that voted they never cheated actually lied to fulfill your claim that 99% of all video gamers cheat. You can't compare video game cheating with speeding, Because it is actually a law for people to keep up with the flow of the traffic, Even if people are speeding. Yes, I have cheated on the Impossible Quiz, But have never cheated on multiplayer games before. I rarely see gamers that play multiplayer games cheat. Even if the majority of the video gamers are cheaters, That doesn't mean that 99$ of them are cheaters.
Video Gamers are all pathetic cheatrs today

Although you say that 57% of gamers said that they don't cheat, That is a lie! Like in anything in life people lie. They don't want to admit but they lie. It's the same in video games, You get stuck in a game, You just look up a suggestion on-line, That's cheating, You can't figure it out so what do you do, You quickly look up, Maybe not the complete solution but hints on how to do it, That's cheating. Try finishing a game from the start without looking up anything, How many people will admit they have not looked up something in a game at one time or another. How many people can admit to being stuck in a game for 8 months and not looking up an answer. Because I can, I can proudly say I have NEVER EVER looked up anything for any video game. But I'm one of the 1% few that are hardcore gamers that play on the nightmare difficulty for every game and I never cheat. I want the challenge, I can beat any game on the hardest difficulty, It's just a matter of practice, But most gamers have ADHD and would not spend 8 months trying to crack a code or beat a very difficult boss, They will resort to cheating instead of using patience to figure it out on their own. Like speeding on the road, It's illegal, Yet everyone does it, But if you ask them about it they all say, No I don't speed, But I just saw a guy speed past me. Nice deflection, It's the same with gamers, Deflect the fact you are a cheater. Have you ever cheated in a game? Any game at all? I think it"s safe to say that most of us have used cheats in at least one game. Game cheats are a part of gaming culture. The Konami Code is famous in its own right. Who of us that played the original Doom hasn"t typed in "IDDQD" to activate "god mode"? Anyone beside me? We know that small forms of cheating are very common and large forms of cheating are pretty rare. The way it is, Is that everyone cheats some of the time, But very few people cheat all of the time. The issue is that, In absolute terms, The damage done cumulatively by all the small cheaters adds up to much more than that of the small number of big cheaters. People all have a small bit of cheating leeway that they can do and not feel bad about themselves. Sometimes however, This leads down a slippery slope. Someone tries a small form of cheating, Gets away with it and slowly but surely their dishonesty ratchets up to the point where it becomes a real problem with serious consequences. Although the total length of the journey to being a big cheater may be long, The hops in between are very small. That makes it easy to rationalize each one. Once you have reached a certain level of dishonesty, Your baseline also shifts. Once you are comfortable with where you are, You can just fudge along again. Majority of gamers are cheaters, Case closed mic drop
Video Gamers are all pathetic cheatrs today

Although many video gamers have cheated, Where do you draw the line between cheaters and non-cheaters? Are video gamers that cheated very rarely still considered to be cheaters? Of a survey of video game respondents, Around 57% said that they had never cheated in video games before, 12% said rarely, 13% said sometimes, 9% said often, And 3% said always. Although it may be that more respondents actually cheated and that they just lied, It shows that not 99% of all video gamers or cheaters, Or even that more than 50% of all video gamers are cheaters. Source is in the comments.
Video Gamers are all pathetic cheatrs today

Let me correct my statement, 99% of video gamers are cheaters, Whether it's to find all the loot, To find all the secrets or to get the best weapons in first person shooters or any type of game. People in nature are just liars and cheaters, Sure they will never admit it, But they are. Well it's no different in video games. Most will cheat to get an edge on their competition, To go further to do better, They just cheat. Cheating in video games has existed for almost their entire history. The first cheat codes were put in place for play testing purposes. Playtesters had to rigorously test the mechanics of a game and introduced cheat codes to make this process easier Of the online gamers, Only 12% have never had their multiplayer gaming experience negatively impacted by other players cheating. In other words, About 9 in 10 players have had a negative experience because of cheaters.
Video Gamers are all pathetic cheatrs today

Just because some video gamers are cheaters doesn't mean that all are. Yes, You are correct that some video gamers look up the answers on the internet, But not all gamers do that. In addition, Some games aren't knowledge based, Such as first person shooter games (I play Pixel Gun 3D as an example), So gamers playing it aren't even able to cheat by looking up information on the internet. Although gamers may be able to find information such as gun damage and popularity, The main purpose of first person shooter games is to virtually kill others, Not to answer questions or have to find information or etc. It's just factually incorrect that all video gamers are "pathetic" cheaters today.
Kids playing Gta

Gta can effect a childs future a LOT! I know kids in school that play GTA AND they are always getting in trouble fighting and may be expelled! It takes over their lives and can change their whole personality! Heres an example. Lets say there is a really nice boy called Thomas. Thomas is 10 years old and he has lots of friends! Thomas's parent's buy him GTA for his birthday. Thomas gets addicted to this game! When his parents tell him to stop playing Thomas gets really annoyed and starts swearing his head off! When his friends call for him he tells them to go away! Thomas dosen't bother showing up to his sports teams training. When he goes to school he is rude to teachers and classmates and dosen't work! Eventually Thomas loses all his friends, He is never happy and can't get a single question right in school!
Kids playing Gta

An interesting premise you have here, CookieMonster. I assume you mean all kids (people below the legal age of majority, which is eighteen in the United States and most other countries), which includes people over 17 years old. This voids the use of the ESRB ratings given to the games as evidence that no child should play them, which is (I hope) not at the heart of what this debate was about in the first place. The more interesting issue (and the one I hope we will be debating about) is whether or not the series is appropriate for children. The Grand Theft Auto game series is a mature and graphic medium of expression, however, gamers everywhere still appreciate the entertainment value it has to offer. Censoring it by any means, legal or otherwise, to people who can handle this type of content and have a wish to play these games is not is it the correct action to be taken. There is no reason for these games to limited to adults just because you personally do not find them to be material suitable to children. Kids have minds of their own and need to judge for themselves what they can and cannot handle, and making some of these choices while they still have the guidance of their parents or guardians to fall back on is of the utmost importance. This way, when they get into a real-life scenario at an older, adult age, such as whether or not they should watch a gory movie, they have previous experience and knowledge to fall back on. Saying that kids should not be allowed to play Grand Theft Auto is unreasonable and I am quite interested in hearing your arguments to the contrary.
Choosing a homebirth adds unnecessary risks and is irresponsible.

Saves Money The good thing about a home birth is that it is low to no cost. A woman would not have to debate whether on not to have a kid based solely upon income and availability of a hospital. Also a doctor can be present if the family wants a doctor to be present. It is again the choice of the family. Also much of the equipment is available to the family and can have it set up in their house. Religions like the Christian Science and other religions like it believe only in that God will save them. Not only is it a religious choice. I also believe that most people who are afraid of hospitals will not go to a hospital even if they are expecting a birth.
Choosing a homebirth adds unnecessary risks and is irresponsible.

As I said in round one, the advantage of now having hospitals has brought down maternal and infant death. Your right, with the rise of technology births have become safer. Please tell me what technology you have in your home for a home birth? Thank you for agreeing with my saying that home birth's are more dangerous than those in a hospital. This is very important, as this debate is over home births adding unnecessary risks to baby and mother. Also, even when using proper birthing techniques, any of the emergency situations I quoted above would be devastating. If the mother were to have a hemorrhage she would die of blood loss in a matter of minutes. So you say "it all comes down to how you handle the situation" there's no way to handle a situation requiring surgery and blood transfusions at home.
Choosing a homebirth adds unnecessary risks and is irresponsible.

The Fact of the matter is that people have had what we would now call "home births" for hundreds of years. When man first appeared we have had births without hospitals for the simple fact that we had not have invented any yet. Yes newborns did die at a higher rate than now, but with the rise of technology, home births are becoming safer and easier to perform. I will concede the fact there was a higher chance of death with a home birth, but the problem was the fact that people did not know how to perform a home birth properly. In that light if you cannot perform a home birth properly then you would of course have a higher risk of death. It all comes down to How you handle the situation. if you handle it correctly then the home births will have a minimal risk.
Choosing a homebirth adds unnecessary risks and is irresponsible.

Women have a right to choose where and with whom they would like to give birth. My question is why would a woman choose to have her baby at home when she has the option to be at a hospital or birthing center? Even if you have a 100% complication free pregnancy, labor can quickly turn sour and you might need a doctors intervention. Not to mention hospitals are sterile, and have every piece of equipment needed in case of any emergencies that might occur during delivery. In the event of wanting a natural birth(no pain medication, etc.), why not do so in a safe surrounding in a hospital or birthing center? The difference between that and a home birth is, if a problem ensues there will be trained Obstetricians there to intercede. Some of the problems possibly being:" maternal hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, eclampsia, uteran abruption, prolapsed umbilical cord, or other obstetric emergencies which would require immediate medical care not available during a home birth" (American Medical Association). If mother or baby died on the way to the hospital in any of the above situations it would be an unnecessary tragedy. Why would anyone put they're newborn at risk in this way, or themselves? My ancestors had they're babies at home but they also frequently lost they're children and died themselves. Also, in the case of a lower income family, there are many state programs availabe to help you have a baby practically cost free. So I want someone to take this debate to explain to me how having a home birth over rules doing everything in one's power to keep they're newborn child safe; which is a parents most important job.
Equitable funding for K-12 Public School system will improve overall education outcome in the US

Umm... I think we will need to stop this debate, because I actually think we agree on this issue...When I say equitable funding, I'm not saying there should be totally equal funding going to both poor and rich school districts... And I actually won't argue against your stand that poorer school districts should receive more funding to make up for the harsher condition.I guess gentlemen can always agree, and I don't mind if voters give my opponent the win because he just made my day :)