BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abolish school extracurricular

I'm disagree the host will abolish school extracurricular. School ex (extracurricular) could make students ability get into higher level beside the academic. We must remember!every students ability is not same. Some of them have an ability in academic , but some of them couldn't,and they might have interest such in sports , music , and we could find them in extracurricular. What will students could interest ? If they couldn't find something in school that they liked to. And then i belive extracurricular can make students more have refreshing time , and not only about academic and academic again that forced them to think harder. It will causes stressed on them. Because extracurricular didn't force them to choose what they don't want to do it. It depends on what they liked to and what subject that they are able to do it.
Who do you think was the good side of the civil war? (Pro) South (con) North

First I would like to point out what my opponent said "I think u r a loser good luck u r so bad at this good luck I hope u lose ok bye loser good luck loser" This was totally un-call for! There is no reason for such slurs! Case 1: Was The Civil War Based On Slavery? Not it was not. As shown in this article, it states that the north had not intention of making of declaring an anti slave war. http://www.libertylawsite.org... he states that the south even repealed laws that wanted to expand slavery into other territories! Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery. As shown in the article. Case 2: The Union Raped Confederate Women! On general Sherman march, many rapes on confederate women occurred. As shown on the link http://www.americancivilwarforum.com... Notice how no cases were reported about confederate men raping union women! If you scroll down further, you will see a union general telling his men to treat the southern women like ****! Lincoln acknowledged that order and did nothing. That is why the south was the good side. If my opponent wishes to prove me wrong, he may do this round.
America is an oligarchy

My opponent, in the last round, asserts that the United States Political System is in fact corrupt and not actually a representative democracy as it claims to be.If this were true, by all technicality, America could be classified as an oligarchy.Unfortunately, it is not. My opponent has failed to prove his claims that "Florida's votes weren't counted", and does not specify what he means by Ron Paul in 2008. I assume "Snowden vs Bush election" was a typo.The opinion of Jim Condit Jr does not provide sufficient evidence as to rather the historical/current government is actively engaging in election fraud.So, here are my opponent's points:P1: The United States is actively engaging in election fraudP2: A government engaging in election fraud is not representative of the people.P3: The United States Government is thus an oligarchy.Rebuttal 1. My opponent has provided no evidence in suggesting that the United States is actively engaging in election fraud and bribery, other than a quote from "Jim Condit Jr". He thus fails his Burden of proof. The fact that there are two parties consistently in power does not definitely assert, nor even indefinitely assert, that fraudulent activity is going on. Unless proven otherwise, it could very well just mean that the population likes those two parties.As for advertising campaigns, I would argue that this point is irrelevant. Whether or not the population is being convinced by misleading advertisements, they still technically hold the physical power to put whomever they want into office (third parties run candidates consistently). And as long as the population technically has power, it is not an oligarchy.Rebuttal 2. Contrarily, evidence from reliable sources [1,2] would now go to suggest the opposite - that the idea of direct voter fraud is a myth. Rebuttal 3. Once again, I will mirror my opinion from previous: the actions, or whether non-actions, of candidates speak nothing to the status of the system. If a candidate goes back on his promises, he does not suddenly become an active oligarch: he was still democratically elected (unless you prove otherwise.. as covered above, you did not). As long as there was another candidate whom the people could have elected to better suit there interests (which there inevitably is in a population of 350 million) America maintains it's status as an oligarchy.[3]Since my opponent's "P1" is inaccurate and improven, his argument is rendered incredible and he fails his burden, meaning that the United States is not an oligarchy.ConclusionI have won this debate because my opponent has failed to justify his assertion that the United States Legislative System is fraudulent, thus failing his burden. Sources:[1] - http://www.brennancenter.org...[2] - http://votingrights.news21.com... [3] - http://www.goodcitizen.org...
America is an oligarchy

I apologize for forfeiting the last round, I've been busy and couldn't find the time to counter over these past couple days. However I would like to pick up where we left off on rigged elections. I would like to argue that the government does in fact interfere with votes. Just look at the Snowden vs. Bush elections. Florida's votes weren't counted, thus Bush won the elections. And what about Ron Paul in 2008? "1. The voting process at the Iowa Straw Poll was a fraud, wrapped in lies. (Whenever those running any kind of an election use police power to hide all the ballots from the people, and then announce results (?) when supposedly (?) only they have seen the ballots " those people are frauds, are acting like Stalin-esque tyrants, and their organization is a fraud. "" Jim Condit Jr. To your second argument, there have been plenty of good presidential candidates over America's semi recent history. However due to money issues and power struggles, only two candidates end up facing off in the end. Which parties do they always come from? Republican and democratic. Why? Because those parties have the most money, aka. better promotions, bribing, and power. Setting aside presidential voting alone, votes on environmental and state laws are often ignored. In the state of California (my home state) a poll was taken on fracking. Obviously, due to the clear environmental devastation that goes along with it, 2/3 of California's population was against it. However, what's happening now? The anti- fracking bill didn't pass. Not because of the American people but because of the few people in power.
America is an oligarchy

1. The US is a representative democracy, elected by the people.An oligarchy is a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.Unless the US is not truly a representative democracy, and the elections are fake (which you have the burden in proving), then by technicality, all power is not being vested in few persons or a dominant clique, as the people still have power in the regard that they elect the representatives. This is what I mean, and I use the dictionary definition of oligarchy.2. There are almost 400 million people in America. At least one of these people is not a “shell”, and would carry through with their promises, and thus it is the fault of the American people for choosing to elect said shell, unless they didn’t elect him at all - which you cannot prove. Even if a government did not carry through with promises, it is still not an oligarchy as all power has not been vested in it.For these prime reasons, I believe I have thus far won the debate as Pro has failed to prove that "all power" has been vested in few persons (and not just a government of relatively few persons in accompaniment with the people).
America is an oligarchy

Clearly you're moving away from the direct definition of oligarchy, which does not specifically mention our government's meddling with votes. I'm assuming that comes from an article on oligarchies and their exact rules and regulations so to speak. Not to mention, there has been no proof found that the government does or does not mess around with vote numbers or elections. However farfetched, there is never any ruling out of this possibility. A quote from another study done on this subject, which I found touched on what I'm trying to point to directly: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." Although it is true that we elect government officials, through the eyes of many we merely vote for the "shells" of our government officials. How many times have presidential candidates promised things that never come? Too many to count. So if we're voting for lies and false hopes, how are we really voting at all? Thanks can't wait to hear your side!
America is an oligarchy

1. My opponent says, "As far as definitions, a Representative democracy is defined as a system of government with a law-making body that is at least partly elected by the people". I am far from conservative, but I find my opponent's comments about conservatism and it's effects on the United States to be irrelevant to the topic at hand: whether or not the United States is an oligarchy. The financial situation of a country says nothing to it's situation as a democracy. A nation could be the poorest nation in the world, with a ginormous income disparity, but still be a representative democracy. Since an oligarchy is a small group of people maintaining complete control over a government, as established, unless you can prove that the people of America did not elect the party in power, effectively proving election fraud, then America is a representative democracy. If the American People elected a legislature or individual who seems to behave in an oligarchical fashion, then that reflects nothing on the process by which the legislature was elected: by the people, democratically. 2. If the party in power seems to not be serving the interests of the American People as planned, then that's that. The American people easily could have elected "Serve Your Interests Johnson", a candidate whom legitimately would not be motivated by an oligarch of people, but instead elected whomever is in office now. That only speaks for the views of the people. 3. A democracy is a democracy. A GOOD representative democracy DOES entail having a solid, stable middle class, and a government immune to bribes, as your sources have stated, but that does not automatically signify America is an oligarchy; rather, that it is merely a poorly functioning representative democracy at the point in time in discussion. I await your rebuttal and thank you :)
America is an oligarchy

My argument does not have anything to do with specific political leaders, and certainly not with the illuminati. I'm mainly pointing towards the dominant class that runs our country, aka. the people with the money. In a recent study titled "Testing Theories of American Politics; Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" conducted by Princeton and Northwestern Universities, researches found that U.S. policies are primarily formed by special interest groups. This means that instead of the lower income class benefitting from policies formed by politicians, the upper class has the upper hand " pun intended " in our country's politics. The study showed that "when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose." On a level below hard evidence, many people believe that large bio-fuel companies are paying a small group of government officials to continue the use of oil and gas for the countries main power source. As far as definitions, a Representative democracy is defined as a system of government with a law-making body that is at least partly elected by the people. Representative democracies are intended to support the people as a whole, and make decisions in their best interest. From obvious choices the United States Government has made, this rule hasn't quite been followed. Some middle class citizens who work their hardest day in and day out barely make enough to pay their bills. I have personally seen both my parents work their whole lives and still don't have a secured retirement. The conservatives of our country are clearly more interested in their own wealth than for the good of the American citizens. "Beginning with the Reagan administration, the U.S. government has steadily instituted policies and legislation that favor corporations over citizens, argues Air America host Hartmann (The Ultimate Sacrifice). Analyzing the rhetoric and policies of the current administration's 'compassionate conservatism,' Hartmann goes on to detail the ways in which safety nets for working people (from progressive taxation to antitrust legislation to Social Security) have been steadily weakened, and argues that an empowered, educated middle class is crucial to a functioning democracy. Chapters detail the ways in which what gets called 'the free market' is not really free (for good reason, he notes), how 'We the People create the middle class,' how the policies of the Founding Fathers and figures like FDR still have a lot to teach us, and ways for 'Leveling the Playing Field.' Though far from comprehensive, and despite its sensationalist title, Hartmann's latest is an intelligent critique of the contemporary plight of the middle class." Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.) The definition of oligarchy is a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. Although votes do determine who's elected into office, who's to say that means they're going to represent the people regardless of what bribes come their way?
America is an oligarchy

I'm (guessing) that your argument is going to have something to do with the "Bush/Clinton" type feud, unless you're some sort of Obama Conspiracist. Or, goodness forbid, an illuminati conspiracist. Either way, I'm completely oblivious as to how you're going to argue, or what type of debate this will be, but the definition of Oligarchy is as follows: ol"i"gar"chy [ol-i-gahr-kee] noun, plural ol"i"gar"chies. 1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 2. a state or organization so ruled. 3. the persons or class so ruling. Since the elected government is technically controlled by the people, whom elect representatives into public office, it is therefore not controlled by the few, but by the many. The only way an oligarchical governing state of America could be proven as existing would be proving that the current government actively participates in election fraud, which I doubt can be cited reliably. I anticipate that you will argue that since the opinions of the many are being channeled into sole representatives, America constitutes an oligarchy - which is untrue, this is a representative democracy. I do not feel the need at this time to argue the differences between a Representative Democracy and an Oligarchy, so I will actually wait for you to argue this point before I expand. I would argue that many other aspects of "America" are an oligarchy, but I assume that you only meant America's government in general (as Oligarchy is a term generally applied to governing bodies). Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Song to papa Trump

In the USA, Papa Trump was dreamin That every communist was named Kim and Stalin Running the labour camps and praising the dear leader While singing the internationale Trump said that the communism will soon be defeated Once everyone supports democracy and speaks American and French Democracy is a paradise! Whoever doesn't believe it off with their heads! Life there must be good. Democracy has a lot of planes and bombs And they both serve democracy in their ways Planes drop bombs, Bombs kill children Democracy is the best system, When we exclude all others Peace and wellbeing are now prospering When there is no jobs other than suffering and addictions Democracy is a paradise! Whoever doesn't believe, Off with their heads! Democracy will rule the whole world! But the American dreams fade like smoke in the air And when papa Trump wakes up, This he will find out Communists like crazed men have already crossed the border And are threatening to take New York! Where shall he put his head now? Like a dog that has gone mad There is no help for him anymore It would be best if he just liquidated himself Together with his democracy!
Mandatory Drug Testing

Thanks Thebreadbasket!, now to my rebbutal, i will first refute your points, and then clarify a few of my own.___________________________________________________________________First my opponent spent his argument refuting my points. I would like to remind the audience, that as he made the debate, he has the "Burden of Proof", because of this he must prove, Beyond doubt, that drug tests do not help our schooling system.______________________________________________________________ You said earlier that"While you say that under peer pressure, kids would say NO to drugs, its never really that way." It seems you misread my argument, your statement is exactly what i agree with. Average students will say "YES" to drugs, when under peer pressure, WE CANT HAVE THIS! However If we punish drug use, with minor punishments, Students can say "NO" to drugs. You also stated that "Fact of the matter is that even though each year thousands of students try illicit drugs for the first time, only a small number of them become addicted users. I agree!! this is why we must have drug tests made mandatory to stop them, this could ruin students lives. [[[ HOW DRUG TESTS STOP STUDENTS]]] The study, The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing, examined 7 districts that were awarded grants [1]"Some 16 percent of students subject to drug testing reported using substances covered by their district's testing in the past 30 days, compared with 22 percent of comparable students in schools without the program. Similar patterns were observed for other measures of student-reported substance use, but those differences were not statistically significant."Even if it is expensive, i argue, that a students life is more important than a few thousand dollars. ______________________________________________________Further more I would like to remind you that the "CON" did not give any evidence, and for all we know, could be making it all up._____________________________________________________Thanks for reading!!!! and thanks for debating "theBreadBasket"Back to you!! :D Sources: http://eric.ed.gov... http://ies.ed.gov...
Mandatory Drug Testing

Heres mine, jq ! While you say that under peer pressure, kids would say NO to drugs, its never really that way. Drugs are an addiction, and according to WebMD, after the first week of drug taking, the druggard get s addicted. There is no stopping that, and just because of some friens, this will not change his opinion. The negative side is not an advocate for the use of drugs, but we also do not believe in high hopes that the execution of such a policy will curb student drug use as you seem to beleive. I mean let"s face reality " in an era where resources are scare and time is of the essence, a drug testing policy is the least of problems that schools should be worrying about. In 2003, PA ruled that unless schools had sufficient proof of students who used drugs, it was unconstitutional to test them. As a matter of fact, the national court does not reccomend testing all students within a high school, and PA set a limit at 27%. Can we really assume that drug testing in schools is the silver bullet for the prevention of youth substance abuse? No we cannot. Fact of the matter is that even though each year thousands of students try illicit drugs for the first time, only a small number of them become addicted users. And once someone is addicted, it becomes very difficult to stop. The National academy of sciences found that adolescents used drugs at virtually identical rates as schools that drug tested verses schools that did not. Additionally, alcohol by nature is harder to appear in most drug tests because it does not remain in the blood long enough, yet there is are more adolescent alcoholics than there are adolescent drug addicts. About 50 percent of 12th graders say that they've used any illicit drug at least once in their lifetime, and over 35 percent report using marijuana in the last year. A high school student is old enough to determine right from wrong, and when he/she chooses to consume drugs, that student has made a conscious decison to do so. The most a high school can do to after a student has tested positive is give disciplinary actions. They cannot force a student to stop using the drug. Research generally agrees that drug testing is ineffective because it fails to deter student drug use and should never be considered as a stand " alone approach to a drug problem. However, research does show that schools who find it an obligation to solve a substance abuse problem, should enforce a positive school climate. A study published in 2013 found that perceived school climate was associated with reduced likelihood of marijuana and cigarette initiation and cigarette escalation, and that student drug testing was not associated with improved drug use outcomes. Rather, the engagement of students in after school programs and providing counseling are more effective ways to refrain adolescents from drugs. Not to mention that one ground-breaking study, conducted by the University of Michigan in 2003, found that schools with drug-testing policies had slightly higher rates of student drug use.
Mandatory Drug Testing

Excited for a good debate TheBreadBasket, good luck! DRUG TESTS FUTURE BENEFITS Drug tests, although admittedly expensive today, drug tests will hopefully soon be implemented in the modern school system. Once they are they will be vastly cheaper, and helping students maintain a good enviroment.DRUG TEST PROS:Unlike athletes drug tests, these will be minor penalties, like a call to the studenst parents, or a brief suspension. This will give students who are under negitive peer pressure a reason to say "NO" to drugs.DRUG TEST STUDY The study, The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing, examined 7 districts that were awarded grants in 2006 by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools to implement mandatory-random drug testing programs in their 36 high schools. The districts volunteered to be in the program and were spread across seven states. Some 16 percent of students subject to drug testing reported using substances covered by their district's testing in the past 30 days, compared with 22 percent of comparable students in schools without the program