BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Choosing a one of three doors, then having one of the other two revealed, then switching is best.

My position is that switching gives you the better chance of winning, sorry if I did not make that clear. I mention ways of interpretation that would suggest that it is a 50/50 chance, one being my father's. I imagine that is what you though was mine, though I gave many reasons to prove that switching gives you the better chance. I haven't much more to say, is your position that you should or should not switch?
Choosing a one of three doors, then having one of the other two revealed, then switching is best.

My opponent is referring to the famous Monty Hall problem, just to be clear. It is as follows; "Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?" This problem was originally sent to Marilyn Von Savant (smartest woman in the world) as a brain teaser, and she said to switching doors would give you a better chance to win the car. When she made the reccomendation she had several mathematicians say she was an idiot and it was commonly pointed out that, hey even geniuses can be wrong sometimes. However, later on when computers simulated the problem and kept coming back as showing switching doors was better, many apology letters had to be sent. My opponent is mistaken that staying on the same door is giving you the same odd as switching. In round 2 I'll give my best explanation of how to use Bayesian math to solve this problem, and you'll see my position is correct, but for now I'll just use this round to explain the Mony Hall problem, give context and accept. I anxiously await my opponent's arguments and look forward to a good clean debate. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Choosing a one of three doors, then having one of the other two revealed, then switching is best.

It is two to one. Doors one and two have goats behind them, door three has a car behind it. You pick door one, door two is revealed, you switch to three and you win. You pick door two, door one is revealed, you switch to three and you win. You pick door three, door one/two (irrelevant) is revealed, you switch to one/two and you loose. With the individual strands of information alone once you reveal one and there are two left it is a 50/50 chance. If you consider the multiple strands of information you see that this is not correct. You have a 33.333% chance of choosing the correct door therefore you most likely did not and there is a 66.666% chance that one of the other two doors. Since the door revealed has to be a goat leaving only one goat and a car (that you most likely did not pick). Therefore it is probable that the car is behind the door left you did not choose.
Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.

I understand what the debate is about, what I am showing though is that if birth control were to be available to all teenagers then STD cases would go up. Teenagers would be having sex and pregnancy rates may go down but because STD rates would go up is the reason why I am against allowing all teens unrestricted access to birth control. My final arguments against unrestricted birth control: 1) A subsequent rise in STD rates 2) Teens may not even use them 3) Even if they do they may not use them correctly 4) Pregnancies may fall but STD rates would climb so there would be no net health benefit (I see what you meant by the guns argument, so no harm done)
Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.

The debate is about, Teens should be able to get birth control without their parents consent. Not STDS! I know that STD's are spreading throughout the nation, but you did not include how many babies are born with STD's. everydayheath.com I never meant that your dad is a murderer, I was trying to imply that guns are accessible it is up to the person to use them correctly. Just like with birth control, it is up to the person use it to use it correctly. Sorry if I offended you.
Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.

Quick clarifications:1) I never claimed you said that birth control doesnt protect against STDs, Im just showing that the health benefit of unlimited access to birth control would be very outweighed by the spread of STD's through sexually active teenagers2) I also never claimed that you said everyone would get them, Im just showing how teen pregnancies would not be wiped out3) My Dad buys guns and stuff to hunt gators not people.......... thanks for suggesting hes a murderer thoughYou claim that "When birth control is not used correctly by ANYONE it can be harmful not just teens." Birth control can be harmful to people when just ONE person does not use it correctly, It only takes one person to pass an STD onto another person and then those two people could accidentally give it to others later in life.... Implying that everyone has to use birth control incorrectly for harm to be done to teenagers is not true at all"This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy."The debate resolution is "Teens should be able to get birth control without their parents consent"Not"Teenage girls ages 15-17 who really want to be protected from pregnancy should be able to get birth control without their parents consent"Unrestrained access to birth control would affect far more groups than just the audience you really wish were the only ones getting unrestricted access. This idea of unrestricted birth control to all teens would have far more consequences as wellmy other arguments still stand
Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.

You make very good points, but I never said that birth control prevents STD's. Also it is logical that if not used correctly it would be harmful. Also I never said that ALL teen girls would actually go and get it, but the one's that are willing to go get it. Your father might buy guns, but that doesn't give him the right to murder. A teen that has strict parents, (possibly Catholic parents), cant just go and say I need birth control because it in most cases, just does not work. The doctor would explain how to use it, and it would but up to the free willed teen to use it correctly. When birth control is not used correctly by ANY ONE it can be harmful not just teens. Also not just teens sell and use drugs, not just teens use or don't condoms, and just because the legal drinking age is 21 doesn't mean that teens don't drink. Note: This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy.
Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.

I believe that teens should be aloud to get birth control without their parents consent because it would save a lot of teen pregnancies. A lot of teens do not go to their parents because they are too scared of being disowned when their parent or guardian finds out that he or she is having sex. Most teens don't want their parents knowing that they are having sex. So they do not go to them and they have sex any ways. I know then there would be problems with parents then trying to take doctors to court, but I should be legal. It should be up to the doctor to explain the health risks and up to to the person to have the freedom to choose. Even if teens do go to their parents most parents would say no any ways because they to not want their children to have sex any ways. I bet before a teen got pregnant the parent wouldn't consent birth control, but they wish their teen was aloud to get it any ways to save them the hassle when their grandchild arrives.
Bread is the most important part of a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhich.

That is not a rebuttal! Most children only don't eat wheat bread because their parents aren't healthy. It is a common fact. Obesity in the world is a bad thing. In fact, sandwiches in general are very unhealthy. Sandwich meats are very unhealthy with preservatives and sugars. But with proper bread and good nutrition the country wouldn't be so obese. Additionally, bread is the structure. Without the bread you would not be able to hold the PB & J. It would fall through your fingers, like the country and it's nutrition concerns.
Bread is the most important part of a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhich.

That is not true. I have compared the nitrition facts of Smucker's Brand Red Raspberry Jam, Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter, and Sara Lee 100% Whole Wheat Bread. These were my results. Bread- (Serving Size 2 slices) 150 calories, 20 Calories from fat, 5g sugar, 7g protein, 0g transfat Jam- (Serv. Size 1 Tbsp) 50 calories, 12g sugar, 0g protein, 0g fat Peanut Butter- (Serv. Size 2 Tbsp) 190 calories, 140 calories from fat, 3g sugar, 7g protein, 0g transfat In actuallity, the bread is the best part, but it is best to use whole wheat bread rather than white bread which has very little nutrients. In summary, bread makes the pb&j a sandwhich. Also, bread contains most of the essential nutriants. As long as it is whole wheat. If my opponent was reffering to white bread I am not sure of the data, but I believe it would be worse. White Bread has very little nutriants and is very un-healthy. In conclusion, the bread makes the whole sandwhich healthier and tastier. If you don't believe me try eating peanut butter and jelly together without the bread.
Cocaine should be made legal in the United States

Road map: I will first begin to defend then attack.DefenseI would like to first state that my opponent has not attacked but agreed with the followingMy Previous Attacks on A) Witch states clearly that taxes will be put in place if legalized thus my opponent responded with "I won't argue against that notion" therefore point blank he agrees that taxes will be set in place by the "black market"B) Seeing how he neither attacked it i presume he agrees with me.My Quote/Value: He has not given more has he attacked mine presuming that he agrees that life could be affected Definitions: Seeing how he did not attack or gave definitions he clearly agrees with mine. My Contention one: "I agree with my opponent regarding the health risks." therefore he agrees that drugs do play affect on the users LIFE.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ATTACKWar on Drugs actually creates the majority of costs our communities pay when considering illegal drugs. Violence itself can be successfully dealt with as a public health problem. It is important to consider the fact that most “drug-related” violence is actually drug trade related. In an analysis of New York City's homicides in 1988, Paul Goldstein and his colleagues concluded that 74 percent of drug-related homicides were related to the black market drug trade and not drug use. For instance, the leading crack-related homicide cause was shown to be territorial disputes between rival dealers, and not crack-induced violence or violence to obtain money for crack purchases.With this being said there will be no stopping to the following Sales of cocaine and other drugs will continue as they have been and possibly rise. As agreed upon by my opponent my my previous attack. Violence within itself in gang and criminal warfare will still rise because of this ca loss of innocent and gang LIVES in witch we live in.
Cocaine should be made legal in the United States

My opponent has bluntly created his arguments rather oddly, Yet in the good spirit of LD iA) "There would be no Black market"If you legalize drugs and tax them, you will have a black market that can sell the same drugs less expensively. The same is true if you stamp a tariff on imported drugs, and history shows this to be correct. B) "It will still be illegal to use to get high. This will send a clear message to everyone that the drug is still bad"The main process of legalising this "drug" is to use it. .so in this case you are contradicting yourself. Now onto my own argument i offer the following definitions from dictionary. com to better understand this resolution. Crack: An addictive narcoticdrug dreived from coca leavs or synthised, used medicinally as a tropical anestedic. Legal: To be permmited by law. Now onto my agunment:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------“Drugs are a waste of time. They destroy your memory and your self-respect and everything that goes along with with your self esteem. ”Because i agree with Singer Kurt Cobain i vote in strong negation of this resolution that Cocaine should be made legal in the United States. My Value is of LIFE plainy because no matter what a person decides to do life will be affected in more then one way. Contention 1: Health RisksHelth playing a huge role in life especially when it comes to the use of "killer" drugssuch as cocane. Both in the phisical aspects and mental aspects call Sub A: Cocaine in all its forms stimulates the central nervous system. It causes the heart to beat more rapidly and blood vessels to constrict. This results in the demand for a greater supply of blood. Sub B: With high doses, users can become delusional, paranoid, and even suffer acute toxic psychosis. Blood pressure increases, which can cause strokes or heart attacks. In some cases these effects have proven fatal. As the drug’s effects wear off, a depression can set in, leaving the user feeling fatigued, jumpy, fearful, and anxious
The Right To Bare Arms

--How would people be able to defend themselves against terrorist groups if their weapons were kept in a safe place? Carrying around your weapon everywhere you go is not a good idea, for reasons I have already stated. --If you are a hunter, go to a hunting club. It's really not a good idea to go around your back woods and just start shooting animals, especially because occasionally you run into a person. Oops. In conclusion, guns will not keep us safe. Privately owned guns do more harm than good, and the "right" to bear arms is not in fact guaranteed by the constitution. People are not responsible enough to own guns. You might be. But most people are not. That's why they should be reserved for the police and the army.
The Right To Bare Arms

The right to bare arms is restricted as I said. We should only have people who have a clean record and only a certain type of gun. If you are a hunter you may have a shotgun and/or a handgun. Besides I am a hunter and I would be very displeased if they banned guns. So here what my proposed plan is: 1. Clean Background 2. Registered user 3. No semi-autos, or that sort of nature 4. Only handgun or shotgun. 5. Must be stoted in safe area. Thats all we need to keep it safe. Banning guns for all people is a bad idea. Imagine if a group of terriosts were in NYC or Washington and the citizens have no weapons to defend against and kept hostage. What would they do? If they had guns then they would protect themseleves and fight back.
The Right To Bare Arms

Let me see if I understand your rationale: - We should have guns because it makes us feel safer. - People would not harm other people if they knew that they had weapons. School shootings are incredibly rare, and giving teachers guns is really not the answer. Putting a trained officer in schools as my high school had is a better idea. But training teachers to use handguns and be warriors in defense of their students? Not a good idea. It's just as likely that the teacher would use the gun improperly or criminally against his or her students as it is for a school shooter to attack. In terms of your assertion that if the government goes bad on us it's a good idea to have guns to defend ourselves...That's a really big assumption. That's assuming that in the blink of an eye, our government, our army, our police officers - they could all go evil on us. That's assuming that no one would see it coming and try to stop it before the first line of defense became civilians armed with hunting guns and pistols. And that's also assuming that those civilians would be at all a match for the professional U.S. army which is now under evil ruthless fascist control. Now I agree, many criminals would still get guns if they were made illegal. But do you really think it's a good idea if everyone carried around a handgun wherever they went? Because say you get mugged and you have a handgun, is it really going to be that great if you pull it out in the middle of the street or wherever you might be and just start shooting? And don't you think that the person who is attacking you might not just knock you on the head, but they may shoot you full of lead because they believe you to be heavily armed? And that's because people are irresponsible. You might be a safe gun owner, but many people are not. And if we dramatically cut the production of guns in the United States, people in the inner cities would find them harder to get. Your everyday criminal would find it much harder to get guns. The hardened criminal would probably still be able to find a way to get guns, but then again in today's world, how much defense is a handgun against a hardened criminal? Most people will not know how to use their guns properly.
The Right To Bare Arms

Alright, good argument but let me straigten this out. You say we have a professional army, well they are under the government control, if they government turns bad then they will too. So, we as citizens should have the right to bare arms if that happens. Second thing is that I am a student in a high school, and pretty much a lot of students agree with me, I would feel safer if a trained and certified teacher was armed. Anyone can walk into the school and start shooting at free will. If a teacher had a weapon, then we would have a chance to fight back. Question is, would you rob, rap or try to kill someone when you know that they have a weapon? My family has a gun in a safe area in each room that you need a password to open. That is what everyone should do so it won't get stolen. So, to close, I believe that there should be tighter security background checks, people should have a sure secure area to put your gun in, and protect yourself.
The Right To Bare Arms

Let us first look at what the Second Amendment says: --- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well regulated MILITIA. That means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is strictly for the purposes of having a MILITIA. Now our biggest enemy doesn't come from Plains Indians or British Canadian soldiers crossing the St. Lawrence, and thus our first line of defense is no longer citizen militia units. We have a professional army, the best in the world. We don't need a militia. If you want to use guns, join the army. In terms of your assertion that guns protect people more, here are some facts: - A member of your household is 22 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound if you have a gun in your house than if you don't. - If a gun is fired in the home, only 2 percent of the time is the gun used on an intruder. The other 98 percent percent of the time, the gun is accidentally used against the owner or a family member, or the burglar takes the gun and uses it. - Each year 500,000 guns are stolen and put into the inner cities. - And that's why...gunfire is the number one cause of death among young blacks. Guns don't kill people, I admit. But guns do help.
Same sex marriage

Let's say that the world was completely different and it was normal to be gay but not normal to be straight but you like a girl anyway would you want everyone hating on you because of it? I think if someone wants to have a marriage to who they love then they should be aloud to. I don't however think they should be aloud to display public "love" ex. Kissing. I think that they should still keep it private because some people might not want to see that. Don't tell someone they can't do something they want to do because they will do it anyway.
is lebron better than michael jordan

Violation One: Vagueness My opponent has offered you a very vague resolution. In its context it states: "Is LeBron (James) better than Michael Jordan". As you can see it is vague because it does not specify what qualities, abilities, and or success MJ (Michael Jordan) and LeBron have or have achieved. In debate, vagueness is bad. It is bad because it does not set clear boundaries and perimeters around the debate topic. It allows a debater to use arguments and evidence that are not topical and irrelevant to the debate. A violation of vagueness is a voting issue and since my opponent has offered a resolution that is unclear you need to vote for the AFFIRMATIVE team. Since the topic is so vague I will specify the topic. I believe my opponent was trying to prove that MJ has more accomplishments than LeBron James. This would be an unfair debate for two reasons: 1) MJ's career is over and LeBron's is not. Therefore, we do not know if he will or will not accomplish more, less, or the same as Michael did. 2) We should not judge the past or future just the present. MJ played before LeBron so their is no way to judge their talent unless they played one-on-one. This leads me into my argument on why LeBron is better than MJ. Since their was no SPECIFIC definition of the topic I am defining better as "more skillful". As I stated above we should debate the present. So by the definitions that my opponent failed to define I suggest that in a one-on-one game today LeBron James would beat Michael Jordan. Contention 1: Age LeBron is 29 years old compared to MJ who is 51. Considering this the chances of old legend beating a legend in his prime seems very unrealistic. MJ is almost twice as old as LeBron minus a few years. Contention 2: Athletic Ability LeBron is 6 foot 8, weighs 250 pounds, is very fast for a man his size, and also has amazing strength. He can play 4 of the 5 positions in basketball. MJ is 6 foot 6 and weighs 220 pounds. He was fast as well but has nowhere near the strength of LeBron. Summary Since MJ's age and lack of strength who prohibit him from beating the current NBA allstar you should vote AFF. Also since my opponent was vague and did not define anything regarding the resolution you need to vote AFF. MJ may have more hardware than LeBron right now but since LeBron is not done you can not vote for the NEG/CON teams evidence. We need to debate current situations and right NOW LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan. Thank you for your time and may the best debater win!
is lebron better than michael jordan

Led the Chicago Bulls to six NBA championships (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998). Five-time NBA Most Valuable Player and six-time NBA Finals MVP. Has enjoyed lucrative endorsement deals with Nike, Hanes, Gatorade, and others. Played in 1,072 NBA games, scored 32,292 points, and had 5,633 assists and 6,672 rebounds. NBA Regular Season MVP: 5 - 1997-98, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1995-96, 1997-98 NBA Finals MVP: 6 - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 NBA All-Star Game MVP: 3 - 1988, 1996, 1998 NBA Scoring Titles: 10 - 1986-87/1992-93, 1995-96/1997-98 NBA Rookie of the Year: 1993-84 NBA Defensive Player of the Year: 1, 1987-88 NBA Slam Dunk Champion: 2 - 1987, 1988 All NBA First Team: 10 - 1985-87/1992-93, 1995-96/1997-98 All NBA Defensive First Team: 9 - 1987-88/1992-93, 1995-96/1997-98 Selected for NBA All-Star Game: 14 - 1985/1993, 1996/1998, 2002/2003 One of 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996) Since Jordan retiring the second time, everybody has been trying to discover his basketball heir. Many players have been signaled, from Vince Carter and Kobe Bryant to Lebron James, but no one has filled Jordan's shoes yet.