BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mrs. Calen is Satan

First of all, I'd like to point out that, while you say your teacher is Satan in the resolution, the first words in your post are "A teacher at my high school is evil." While Satan is evil, it doesn't logically follow that everything that is evil is Satan. Secondly, keep in mind that while you say "it is Ms. Calen and not Mrs. Calen", the resolution clearly specifies Mrs. Calen, so you're definitely contradicting yourself there. Third, the idea that your teacher is Satan is purely subjective, and there is no objective proof that your teacher, Mrs. Calen, is Satan. While your opinion may agree with this resolution, your beliefs are not instrumental to the debate; because, obviously, if all your opinions were accepted as fact, there would be no sense of fair play, since you could say anything and it would automatically become true. Fourth, if Biblical Scripture is to be believed, the incarnation of Satan on Earth would also come with Armageddon; and, considering that Hellfire and Brimstone are not raining down, and that the final battle of Good and Evil is not happening at this time, it shows that your teacher cannot be Satan. Fifth, while I agree preliminarily with this idea that your teacher may cause students to suffer, keep in mind that 1. This isn't necessarily on purpose; many kids don't like school, but that is the choice of the kids, not the fault of the teachers; they are there to help willing kids learn, not to be every student's best friend. 2. Even if this Mrs. Calen was deriving enjoyment from making your school experience a miserable one, that does not make her what you claim. Humans can be sadistic, yes, but that is still not definitive proof that she is indeed Satan.
Mrs. Calen is Satan

1) "If those trumpets had sounded, everyone on Earth would know about it. " I'm not saying people wouldn't hear it. I'm sure everybody would know about it. I'm saying that those trumpets already sounded. Then God made us forget, to test our resistance to Satan. 2) "the incarnation of Satan on Earth would most definitely have to be a male" The scripture does say HIM, but Satan can take on many forms. For example: In Genesis Satan took on the form of a snake that was neither male, nor female. . http://www.allaboutcreation.org... That means that Satan can live in a woman, man, or animal. 3) "The topic you offer requires definitive proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that Ms. Calen absolutely is Satan. " If this statement is true, and you are con to Ms. Calen being Satan, then that means YOU require definitive proof that Ms. Calen ISN'T Satan.
Mrs. Calen is Satan

I don't tend to read scripture much. That much I can say is true. So, first of all, the point of the Trumpets in Revelations is to make sure that God has our complete attention; if those trumpets had sounded, everyone on Earth would know about it. Plus, if this is the first period of Tribulations, also keep in mind that you would not KNOW whether or not Ms. Calen was indeed Satan, because her identity would be secret (also apply the scripture you quoted; "and everyone shall follow HIM"; from what you give us, the incarnation of Satan on Earth would most definitely have to be a male; which, Ms. Calen is not. Even from the evidence you give to us, however, there is no definite proof that Ms. Calen actually IS Satan; you explain Tribulations, but give no reason as to how that applies to your Ms. Calen: In fact, you say, and I quote, "Ms. Calen could possibly be that leader". You yourself mention that she could POSSIBLY be that leader, but the topic you offer requires definitive proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that Ms. Calen absolutely is Satan. It's evident that you are making flawed assumptions based on certain events; since Ms. Calen is working for Congress, you assume she is trying to take America, and then the world, by the throat; however, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of corrupt Congressmen that are probably far worse than your Ms. Calen. Her reasons for going to Congress could be as much to pass reforms and clean up Congress as it could be to take over the world. Until you can offer hard evidence supporting the that Ms. Calen IS (not "could possibly be") Satan, this round needs to go to the CON.
Mrs. Calen is Satan

I would like to apologize for causing confusion. To clarify, I was saying that a teacher at my school, Ms. Calen is Satan. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. 1) "if Biblical Scripture is to be believed, the incarnation of Satan on Earth would also come with Armageddon; and, considering that Hellfire and Brimstone are not raining down" I think you have not read scripture very carefully. In Revelations the order goes as such: 1st: Trumpets will sound and the people who have gave their heart to God will rise to Heaven. 2) There will be a 3.5 year period of Tribulations. In which everything will be fine and a leader will arise. 3rd) 3.5 period where that leader will claim to be Jesus, and everyone shall follow him, but he will betray the people and cause Hell on Earth. . http://scriptures.lds.org... The 2nd period of Tribulations is when Hellfire and Brimstone would be raining down. Who's to say that the trumpets haven't already came, but we don't remember it. In that case we could be living in the first Tribulations right now. Ms. Calen could possibly be that leader, because next year she said she is trying to get into congress.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his last, and probably most important round of the debate. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent has rambled about how to much government is bad but has not differentiated what power the government should and shouldn't have. He did not prove why we are morally obligated to remove the necessity for the test, like his resolution and definitions required. He has not proven how it would be beneficial. Basically. .. All points extended.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard

Thank you for the timely response. My opponent has disregarded my arguments. He has still not proven, nor attempted to prove that we are morally obligated to remove the exit exams. He has also not proven the system of morality in which we are required to remove the exams. Extent this argument. He has not proven how removing the exams is any more beneficial then having them (Why would they still even try to learn if there was no exam to motivate them to learn the material) I.e argument "The will to learn" C.1: This does not show why we are morally obligated to remove them. I must point out that my opponent predicts that we will lower the standard of the test, and this is worse then removing the test altogether? You must prove how abolishing the test is better than lowering the standard of the test. C2: You are debating that The united states national tests should be abolished, therefore because Finland "has to take the test" does not make your case, we also "Have to take" our exit exams. C3: This shows nothing more than that we should change the test to better accommodate the students future, which i agree with. But you are debating that we should remove it altogether. The government's power has no bearing on this debate, if this point was accurate then the government should have no power over anything (If this is the case he must prove why) Or if it is not related like i suggest, he must prove why removing this governmental power is better than removing other governmental powers. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent still has not proven why we are morally obligated to remove the tests, nor proven his system of morality. He has not mentioned why the students will want to learn the material if there is going to be nothing to prove their knowledge on. He has also not proven why it would be beneficial to remove the tests in any way. Negated.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard

:) I wanted to debate this LD style, and my opponent does not have any values, and he does not accept mine so. MY CASE: C1: His argument makes no sense, with all due respect. There are many failures in the public school system, so if they teach the kids the test, they are still going to fail. Plus the government after many failures the government will lower the standard of the test. SBA: This is important because it shows that our system is awful, and we need to adopt Finland's method of teaching teenagers. C2: My opponent does not understand, we are debating on exit exams, not nation required exams that Finland schools have to take. Extend this point across the board. C3:Many college professors and employers and employers say that high school graduates must be able to analyze conflicting explanations, support arguments with evidence, solve complex problems that have no obvious answer, reach conclusions, conduct research, and engage in the give-and-take of ideas. Also needed are attributes such as good study skills, time management, awareness of one's performance and persistenc Proved
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard

Greetings Dan1 I hope to have a good debate. I agree with the definitions. ========= My negations: ========= C1. Moral obligation- My opponent has worded the resolution, and used a definition of "Ought" that holds the resolution to a moral obligation. Meaning he is arguing that we are morally obligated to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. Now, in order for my opponent to uphold the resolution, he must do the following: 1. Prove his system of morality that obligates us to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. 2. Prove that removing the necessity to pass exit exams will be beneficial. C2: The will to learn- My opponent has suggested that if we remove the exit exams, drop-out rates and lower grades would decrease. This would seem quite obvious however, this is not necessarily a good thing. While the current rules apply, you must pass the exam to graduate. This is giving students a motive to study, and make sure that they are learning the material. Without the test, there is no will to learn the material. ================= My opponents arguments: ================= C1: Teachers teach the class, which is correlated with the test. The test tests them on things they need to know, thus the reason they teach the class that way. Sub-point A contention: This has no bearing on whether we are morally obligated to remove the tests or not. Sub-point B contention: Whether they are highly respected or not does not make it an obligation to do what they want, the test is based on the curriculum making that point irrelevant. Prove that they will be learning less. C2: Maybe we should, they still have standardized testing. Thank you for conceding the debate right there. C3: Prove it. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent suggested that we adopt Finland's system which possesses standardized tests, I'm not quite sure how to take this. I await my opponents response to my arguments.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

This is going to be one debate in a project I have devised to decide on the global warming issue once and for all - I will take the pro side in one debate, the con side in another debate, and make my decision from there.Part II - Take the side for anthropogenic global warming. Now I will defend the side I usually attack.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
TTT: Smoking is Overall, Cool.

Hilarious turn-over. I almost thought I'd auto-win from my rebuttals. Looks like I have to try harder.LAST ROUND!!Jesus...has....golden....barricade...What an unexpected turnover! My opponent has found out Jesus's secretive force field and attempted to put this as one of Jesus's cool traits. The big problem is that all golden barricades are "hot".And fiery.Just look at the picture below... In fact, even a Chinese quote proves this... You see? The fire above is obviously gold, and it even proves gold, as those Chinese people claim.Now, as for the kid from Boyhood smoking....he doesn't. Trust me. No movie footage is found of him smoking.See: https://www.google.com...Now, about the cat mafia leader smoking, I have to say, you're right to some degree. However, you see, they are gangsters, not a mafia team. Mafias are greatly organized, intellegent targeting groups, not a mob of random people who shoot everywhere. Yeah, see? Random gangster shoots everywhere, even random people who don't harm the plan at all. On the other hand mafia people are far more organized and better. They simply are too intelligent and spend too much time planning to smoke. s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="Boardroom Meeting Suggestion Meme | MAFIA TEAM, LET'S COME UP WITH A PLAN OKAY IF WE USE OCCAM'S RAZOR, WE CAN GET THEM.... I NEED SOME CIGARETTES. | image tagged in memes,boardroom meeting suggestion | made w/ Imgflip meme maker" width="490" height="636" />As you can clearly see here, smoking is prohibited, especially during a mafia's planning session. 3. The woman is holding the cigarette because it is in use.As if. She's not smoking. You can tell she loves to torture people with that cigarette butt facing towards you and the sly look on her face. Which means the cigarette is hot. And burns people. Tom Hanks being evil and drugging Thett3... You can clearly tell that because Tom Hanks is evil, and he smokes, therefore smoking is not cool because Tom Hanks isn't cool at all for drugging Thett3. You defeated you own argument.The Fahrenheit joke:It has a 90-degree drop. You said smoking is only 40 degrees. But 40 degrees is so not cool compared to 90-degrees. Therefore the coal in the cigarette is still not cool.Morgan Freeman awesomely smoking:Yes, he smoked that one time. Not only did he smoke, he set off an explosion. Many can verify that it was an explosion (see: http://www.themoviespoiler.com...), which is HOT, as the picture below can clearly verify.... See? Much too hot for you.IRREFUTED ARGUMENTS-Smoking is romantic tragedy-The orange glow/force-field is still quite hot-The cool mafia cat does not smoke, and neither does the cool mafia-40-degrees is not cool at all, only 90-degree-drops and aboveare cool-Tom Hanks is not cool. He smokes. Therefore smoking isn't cool.-The picture above can definitely justify the hotness of the explosion caused by Morgan Freeman's smokingAs you judges can clearly see, I have shown the hotness of smoking. Let it be known that smoking isn't cool at all. It's incredibly hot. VOTE ME.
TTT: Smoking is Overall, Cool.

Jesus is cool...?Jesus liked to relax while smoking cigarettes?My opponent has made many poorly constructed arguments. For one, Jesus was more hot than cool. Of course, he had the coolness enough to fit into the video of 2:29, but he had the hotness to even non-homosexual men following him around. (See the GLOW? ORANGE GLOW?? Orange Glow=HOT!!! NOT COOL) Jesus is so hot he emits light/radiation like a light bulb.Now, moving on to the movies...1. Boyhood's smoking jointsThe dude on the movie poster is definitely not doing anything of the sort. He is just lying down, happy.2. The mighty Godfather has a cat who smokes"Furthermore, it can be established that Godfather was a good movie because it had a cat, which almost certainly smoked." Note that my opponent said ALMOST CERTAINLY. Not even he can determine whether the cat is 100% smoke-cat. The cat is definitely not smoking. Being under the influence of his owner, The Godfather, he secretly does the same thing, organizing a mafia crime scene with cats. And he's too busy to smoke with all his important things to do. And note due to the amazing disguising abilities, it's almost impossible to tell who The Godfather's cat is. But--I saw it sneak into a secret hideout to hold a meeting, even hearing some of its epic words. Therefore, we can see that The Godfather has a cat here who is way too busy to smoke. Smoke is just not cool enough for The Godfather's cat.Furthermore, I already mentioned within the third movie that she was merely holding the cigarette, not smoking. There is a crucial difference.Mr. Banks is not a masterpiece because Tom Hanks is not an human:The cat is also not a human within The Godfather, yet it smokes and you claim it's cool. One of these points is self-refuted. Choose the point yourself.Also, if you chose this point to NOT refute, then it can be easily rebutted by the fact that not even Tom Hanks, the amazing lizard-koala-bear-shape-shifter, can make smoking look cool. If not even the super cool shape-shifter can make smoking cool/the movie a masterpiece, then nothing can make smoking look cool.Smoking is 50 degrees Fahrenheit. I'll infer that means that the ride has now been modified to be easier to take on, at a 50-degree drop rather than 90-degree drop. (For joke reference please read: http://en.wikipedia.org...(roller_coaster))That will definitely not be a cool ride at all. Think about it. A 50-degree drop in comparison to the 90-degree drop is absolutely horrendous. Not cool, 50-degrees, definitely not cool.Morgan Freeman is Science fiction and he smokes.Incorrect. He did not actually smoke, it was a campaign for his ad. See? No smoke, just promotion of his science channel program.
TTT: Smoking is Overall, Cool.

Thank!Smoking is way cool. Just like Jesus. Just look at this:C1: Jesus is coolC2: Jesus liked to relax while smoking cigarettesC3: Cigarettes are coolI know, I know, most people have a problem with contention one. I understand. We can't take things like that for granted. Need proof? Just watch the video. Bam! I have fulfilled my side of the BoP. However, I will continue just because I can.http://www.youtube.com...I will now prove that all of the movies my opponent brought forward are actually masterpieces because of smoking.First Movie: BAM!"Before writing a scene in which Mason arrives home at midnight drunk and high, Linklater says he asked, "R01;"You guys are riding around. Do you think you have a beer?" He says, "Well, I kind of prefer marijuana." I"m like, "Okay, maybe they"re smoking a joint."R01;"Read the whole article. Clearly, this instance of smoking is why the movie is a masterpiece. (1)Second Movie: BAM! (Number 9 loving way to love a cat!)You may be saying: "What does this have to do with the debate?"I will so you friends! Observe the following picture: That's right. All cat's love to smoke. It cools them off after a hard day of work. Furthermore, it can be established that Godfather was a good movie because it had a cat, which almost certainly smoked. Third Movie: BAM!This one is obvious! Look at the cover. Woah! She is smoking! That's why the movie is a masterpiece. My opponents Mr. Banks example is ridiculous. The movie is PG-13 and not a masterpiece because it has Tom Hanks. The movie isn't a masterpiece because he isn't even human! That's right, and here's my proof: And... ! Alarming isn't it?Now, to address another aspect of my opponent's argument. He makes outrageous claims about the temperatures of the coals of cigarettes while smoking. He is wrong! A credible source I have aquired makes claims to the exact opposite (1). "The temperature of coals while smoking is actually about 50 degrees Fahrenheit." That is pretty clear and concise. Make sure to read the source, it is stunning. Thanks for the shout-out, Jesus.Smoking is definitly Sci-Fi by the way. Observe:C1: Morgan Freeman is Sci-FiC2: Morgan Freeman smokesC3: Smoking is Sci-FiConclusion: I have now proven beyond a doubt that smoking is indeed, cool. Still not convinced? Well.... This debate is over.Sources:(1) http://m.theatlantic.com...(2) https://docs.google.com...
TTT: Smoking is Overall, Cool.

Smoking is not cool at all.To begin with, what's exactly cool? You'd say 20 Celsius is relatively cool, right? What about 30 Celsius? Not too bad, right? It could be said as "cool" to an extent, but staying in an environment like that could harm your body. But...this is not the case. Smoking....can....|||||||||(Wait for it)|||||||||"During a puff, the coal temperature reaches 800°C to 900°C".....[1] Whoa. 30 Celsius was already a stretch, but 800 to 900 Celsius? No way that is "cool" man.Now, my second argument.Smoking does not make movies R, merely PG-13.Have you guys seen the movie Saving Mr. Banks? And why is that movie PG-13? Good question. That's because they smoke. Now, why is just PG-13 bad? Well, all the masterpieces are rated R, unfortunately.Boyhood, the amazing appraised modern masterpiece? Rated R.Godfather, the acclaimed "best film of all time" by many? [2] Rated....R.Pulp Fiction, yet another old-time masterpiece.... is.... rated.... And for my final argument....Smoking isn't even sci-fi.Science fiction has been admired and known as the epitome of coolness throughout the world, from 2001: A Space Odyssey, to WALL-E, and even the mighty INCEPTION. But it smoking science fiction?Studies suggest smoking is actually romantic tragedy. Think about it. You kiss the cigarette every day and wish to be with it throughout your life. But it is never happy or easy for you. The cigarette is a mute, struggling to express its feelings. It is also a priest, so it can never get pregnant or even get it on with you. Furthermore, you parents disprove of your affair with this mute priest, and seperate you as long as they possibly can. Finally, PDA with the cigarette is prohibited. The public just don't like how disgusting it looks. Onto you, Malacoda. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
TTT: Smoking is Overall, Cool.

This is for The Troll Tournament, found here: http://www.debate.org...: taking a puff out of a cigarette. It does not necessarily have to be just one puff, a few puffs, 100 puffs, are all smoking.I will not define anything else in the resolution, and neither will my opponent, because my opponent must only use round one for acceptance.My opponent must troll in this debate.It is fun debating unbeatables, I hope I have a good debate with this one.