BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most skateboarders are not uneducated punks that smoke weed.

My opponent's resolution: "Most skateboarders are not uneducated punks that smoke weed."Note that in this instance Pro has the burden of proof to support his claim. He must provide sufficient evidence to prove that most skateboarders are not "uneducated punks that smoke weed." All I must do is show that he has not provided sufficient evidence.Most: 1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number. 2. in the majority of instances. [1]Majority: the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total. [2]The number of skateboarders in the US is estimated to be over 9,000,000. [3][4] The number of skateboarders in the entire world is estimated to be over 18,000,000. [5] While these numbers may not be up to date, I have no reason to believe that they have significantly decreased in the last decade. This means, in order to prove his resolution that "most" skateboarders are not uneducated punks that smoke weed, he must prove that over 9,000,000 skateboarders are not uneducated punks that smoke weed. Even if my opponent were to argue that the number of skateboarders worldwide had dropped significantly to, say, 1,000,000, he would still need to prove that at least 500,001 of those skateboarders were not uneducated punks that smoke weed.I am interested to see how he plans to accomplish this.------------[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]http://skateboarding.transworld.net...[4]http://online.wsj.com...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The NFL should kick racist teams out of American football

Please examine the following list of team names and see if you can spot the odd one out: New York Kikes; Cleveland N!ggers; Green Bay Pakis; Denver Dagos; Indianapolis Wops; Washington Redskins; Pittsburgh Greasers; San Francisco 4x2s*; New Orleans Spics; Dallas Coolies; Tampa Bay Towelheads. Can guess which one it is? No? Okay, I'll tell you: it's the Washington Redskins because that is the genuine name of an actual NFL football team whereas I just made the others up. It's outrageous that the NFL allows a club with such are racially offensive name (1) to participate in the sport they govern and I propose that they offer Washington Redskins the following ultimatum: change your name or we'll kick you out of the NFL. There is no good reason why Washington Redskins cannot change their name, and here are some inoffensive alternatives they might consider: Washington United; Washington 69ers; Washington Rovers; Washington Foreskins; Washington Athletic; Washington Fudge-Packers; AFC Washington; Washington Rentboys; Washington Wanderers; Washington Butt-Buccaneers; Sporting Washington; Washington Arse-Raiders; Sparta Washington; Washington Sh!t-Stealers; Washington Rangers. There is no place for racism in American football and that's why I affirm that the NFL should kick racist teams out of the league. Thank you. (1) http://oxforddictionaries.com... *4x2s (pronounced "four by twos") is Cockney rhyming slang for Jews
U.S. Military Interventionism

True, our economy would be better but for all we know Bosnia, Vietnam, and Korea might still all be at war, which would be pointless. And I don"t think that the U.S. acting as a world police is na"ve. If we have the power to end, stop, or prevent an unnecessary conflict then why shouldn"t we? And when you say that the Bosnia crisis is irrelevant because the U.N. were the one"s that took action, but America was the primary country that urged the U.N. and NATO into action in 1994. And where your coming from with the opium economical value, the opium is not what grabbed America"s attention, what did that was oil and rising conflict in the Middle East. If we backed out of that part of the world completely, how long would they last before ISIS took over completely and totally? And with your federal spending regiment, you act like the amount that the military is funded is unnecessary, but if we dropped funding and evened it out until the funding was more evened, then what would there be to keep other military superpowers from taking that away from us? It is unlikely, but it"s much better to be cautious and prepared than to let our guard down and end up like some of the counties currently going through wartime crisis. And what you say involving the U.N. constitution it states, in chapter VII, article 51 "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations", therefore stating that in a threat such as ISIS that intervention is allowable as collective defense. And it will continue being considered collective unless the host countries object, which they have not. The U.K., Poland, and Australia are also abiding countries and the U.N. has not made complaints involving any of these countries.
U.S. Military Interventionism

I have been researching a lot of the U.S."s policies involving interventionism and have come to a realization that without it this nation would be worse than it is today. As the world"s greatest military force, possibly ever, it is our duty to be cautious, and when the time comes, take action and intervene. If we know that someone is making military movements that could possibly put the U.S. in a place of strategic disadvantage or that goes against common moral beliefs, such as a genocide or chemical testing on civilians, we are obligated to look into, and if needed, stop these actions. But, in some cases we simply should not get involved. Take Halliburton"s involvement in the Middle East. We should have never gotten involved over there. When that started we took the liberty of getting involved and supplying Iraq in the 80"s. We originally had no reason for involvement other than oil, but that"s a totally different discussion. Take WW2 for example, when all of our allies were getting attacked and we were sitting by not wanting to get involved, for fear of further economical disaster. If we had bothered to get involved earlier we could have cut that war so much shorter. There are many places in American history where we should have gotten involved, but chose not to until it was too late or we just never did. Bosnia was a great example of what we should do with interventionism. We realized something was going on that would affect the U.S. in the long run and stopped it as fast as possible.
Multiculturalism is impossible because some cultures are better than others.

This is not a debate about race or religion! Believing one race is superior than another is racist. Believing that a culture is superior than another is a valid argument, they can be measured using Human Development Index, access to education, access to health care, literacy rates, poverty rates and anything that shows that cultures overall positive impact of human existence. Pro will make the case that all cultures are not equal, some are much better than others making mulitculuralism ineffective. Con will make the case for what they feel is the opposite of that. Culture=the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Religion counts as an art, but do not argue that this religion is better than another, rather how that religion helped advance that culture. Sorry that this intro is so long, I realized as I was typing how this could get out of hand very fast with Race, and Religion so I did my best to narrow it down a little bit. If there are any questions you would like answered prior to the debate, please comment below I will do my best to answer any clarifications ASAP.
Drunk driving should be legalized.

I don't think drunk driving should be legalized. It has taken way to many life's. Innocent or not their lives has been taking by someone else's mistakes. I also don't think it's taking there freedom. They're going to jail for doing something illegal. To me that's like saying if you kill someone and got put in jail for it there freedom was took. I think they're just learning their lesson for a mistake they have done. It's called responsibility, they have to take responsibility for their actions. Going to jail will also teach them not to do this again, the laws are there for a reason. That reason is to keep us safe, and when someone breaks those laws most of the time it will put them in danger. "You must take responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself." -Jim Rohn
Drunk driving should be legalized.

StructureR1: ArgumentsR2: RebuttalsR3: Defend your argumentI Pro will argue that drunk driving should be legalized. Most people are safe to drive when they have had a few drinks. Making DUI (driving under the influence) illegal has not halted drunk drivers. "Responsible drinking is subjective. It will take 2 to 3 drinks to reach the legal 0.08 limit, but most people can probably handle twice as much without encountering any problems. Let’s look at all the people out clubbing and at the bar on the weekends." [1]"Average number of people arrested annually for drunk driving 1,500,000" [2] Also DUI laws can be used by the municipality to harvest fees. There is no good reason why people should have their freedom restricted in this matter. Citizens should be allowed to drive drunk. ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin [3] Security would be increased but at a cost of liberty. Give the people what they want. Links.1. http://daclaud.com...2. http://www.statisticbrain.com...3. http://whatourforefathersthought.com...
Drunk driving should be legalized.

Rebuttal of opponent's R1 argument"It has taken way to many life's. Innocent or not their lives has been taking by someone else's mistakes." lalaland35This only proves my point. Drunk driving is illegal now, and yet has taken many lives. The fact that drunk driving is illegal does nothing to deter drunk drivers."They're going to jail for doing something illegal. " lalaland35Yes, but drunk driving shouldn't be illegal. Instead DUI should be legal."To me that's like saying if you kill someone and got put in jail for it there freedom was took." lalaland35Most drunk drivers cause no harm let alone killing anyone. Plenty of sober drivers take human life. For example 60% of all fatal car crashes involve sober drivers. "Alcohol is involved in about 40% of all fatal car crashes." [4]"You must take responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself."-Jim RohnPeople can take responsibility without the law. Plenty of people drove sober when DUI laws were less severe. I'm not stating that everyone should drive drunk. Only that the DUI laws should be repealed. Links4. http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov...
Should tickets have been removed from Roblox? (Pro=Yes) (Con=No)

We have the same opinion, so this really wouldn't be an argument. However, I will state the reason I agree with the removal of TIX. 10 TIX=1 Robux which 1 Robux=1 penny. I am not sure how many people were playing Roblox, but I am sure there were more than 1 million on Roblox before the removal of TIX. 1-million pennies equals $10,000. Add this to the cost of the equipment, workers wage, and Roblox itself for JUST A DAY. It is a good thing that they got rid of TIX, otherwise Roblox would have to worry about bankruptcy.
Should tickets have been removed from Roblox? (Pro=Yes) (Con=No)

The issue with your argument is that you assume that every ticket is used. Each tix is 17 "Robux" (1). If we do math under the same assumption that there are 1 million active player in one day, and we assume that each player makes 10 tickets a day. that would be 10 million tickets. Divided by 17 makes 588235 Robux makes Roblox "lose" only 5,882.35 dollars. A little more than half of what pro claims. This money does not scar the massive company of Roblox. and there is no chance they would go bankrupt. The value of the domain "Roblox.com" is 826 million dollars(2). The games on Roblox are created by young independent developers, meaning that Roblox does not pay them.I believe that Roblox should not have removed "tix" because most players are in the elementary school demographic and cannot make their own money. Tix was a way for these young kids to get some of the in game items in Roblox. Roblox's reason on removing tix do not matter, the company simply wanted more money. As I have explained, the company does not lose much money and is already massive.Roblox's decision to remove will have some negative effects for the player that can afford to pay for "Robux". Because Robux is the only currency, players are now forced to buy them. This leads to more in circulation, which leads to inflation. INflation means that each Robux is worth less, meaning that people need to buy more to get the same value. Roblox then gets more money. the company wins and the players lose.Citations1.http://blog.roblox.com... 2.http://www.worthofweb.com...
Double-Sided Interview

I had hoped this would go better... Oh well.1. Philo Farnsworth and Charles Francis Jenkins invented TVs.2. Veronica Roth wrote the Divergent trilogy.3. I actually take Latin in school. Salve!4. I have two sisters, one older and one younger, named Jordan and Jaclyn.5. I have to cats, Riley and Caesar (pronounced Kai-Zar)zachdebate727, if you decide to read this again, answer the last three questions I just answered.
Double-Sided Interview

Aw, come on! A forfeit! Seriously?I guess I'll answer my own questions:1. I live in the United States.2. My favorite TV show is Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. 3. My favorite subject is English because I love to read.4. My favorite book is the Fall of Five by Pittacus Lore, book 4 in the Lorien Legacies series.5. I don't have a job, but I want to be an actor. 1. Who invented TVs?2. Who wrote the Divergent trilogy?3. Do you know any Latin?4. Do you have any siblings?5. Do you have any pets?
Double-Sided Interview

I forgot to mention, if something is too personal for you, just say "I don't feel comfortable with this question."1. I am in 8th grade.2. My profile says I'm 15 years old, but I'm actually 13. I created this account a couple years ago, when I wasn't old enough to get in.3. My favorite color is dark blue.4. My favorite holiday is Christmas.5. The amount of debt the US is in is as follows:$17,127,013,646,670.61(It's probably changed by now.)Source:http://www.brillig.com...1. What country do you live in?2. What is your favorite TV show?3. What is your favorite subject in school?4. What is your favorite book?5. Do you have a job? If so, what is it? If not, what do you want to be?
Double-Sided Interview

I am Kyle 1. I am good. 2. George Washington was the first president of the United States. 3. I can do pi to the seventy fifth number, 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628 4. I am currently a college senior 5. I am 23 years old Now for your questions 1. What grade are you in? 2. How old are you? 3. What is your favorite color? 4. What is your favorite holiday? 5. How much debt is the United States in?
Double-Sided Interview

This is basically a question & answer debate. You MUST write 5 questions (and only 5. No more, no less) each round and answer the ones I give you. Also, you MUST give a name at the start. It doesn't have to be your real name, and there doesn't have to be a last name, but I must have a name. I will give you mine: Ethan.All questions must be answered in complete sentences, and not all questions have to be educational. You could ask: What color are your eyes? "I don't know." does count as a complete sentence, but you can only say that one question per round. The reason for that is, if you are on this website, you must have internet connection, so if you don't know, look it up. Also, you obviously don't have to leave an "I don't know" at all.You must number your questions 1-5. For example, I will give 2:1. What is your name?2. How many times may you say I don't know per round?You then must number your answers with the question:1.My name is Ethan.2. You may only say "I don't know" once each round.Remember, answer in complete sentences.Voters, decide the winner by whoever asks the most intriguing questions and gives the best answers.And now for the questions:1. How are you today?2. Who was the first president of the United States?3. What are the first ten digits of pi in order after the decimal point?4. What grade are you in?5. How old are you? Remember to give me a name!
The ideal Christian husband/wife or "right one" is made not found

My opponents argument for the resolution (The ideal Christian husband/wife or "right one" is made not found)is a weak one. While he explains how the "right one" is made he fails to explain how they come to be with each other. According to the Bible Adam and Eve were made for each other, they were the first people God created. But are Christain couples brought together like this now? No, they find eachother. He even concedes to this in the comments section of this debate. 'I'm saying that at some point they find each other and yes God determines and creates what a Christian will experience in order to make them compatible applying to both partners. 'Back to Pro. Sorry about the R3 forfeiture. I didn't misread what my opponent wrote in the comments section: "I'm saying that at some point they find each other and yes God determines and creates what a Christian will experience in order to make them compatible applying to both partners. " We can clearly see here that he concedes to the fact that ". .. at some point they find eachother. .. " thus negating the resolution.
The ideal Christian husband/wife or "right one" is made not found

Con tries to claim that I conceded when he misread what I said. I will repeat what I said in round 1 and 2 "It's come to my attention in some Christian communities that there is a concept of "the right one" and that somehow God will bring him/her to you while you wait patiently in prayer." I argue that the "right one" is not found as some would expect." How they find each other is neither completely supernatural nor are Christians supposed to actively seek out a mate. Proverbs 18:22 "The man who finds [matsa] a wife finds a treasure, and he receives favor from the LORD." If the author really intended for a wife to be actively sought after, he would have used the Hebrew Baqash (1). Sources: 1. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
The ideal Christian husband/wife or "right one" is made not found

My opponents argument for the resolution (The ideal Christian husband/wife or "right one" is made not found)is a weak one. While he explains how the "right one" is made he fails to explain how they come to be with each other. According to the Bible Adam and Eve were made for each other, they were the first people God created. But are Christain couples brought together like this now? No, they find eachother. He even concedes to this in the comments section of this debate. 'I'm saying that at some point they find each other and yes God determines and creates what a Christian will experience in order to make them compatible applying to both partners.'Back to Pro.
The ideal Christian husband/wife or "right one" is made not found

It's come to my attention in some Christian communities that there is a concept of "the right one" and that somehow God will bring him/her to you while you wait patiently in prayer. There are several problems with this approach: 1. Your not being proactive in your wait - What are you doing to build the characteristics you want to see in your spouse? How are you preparing yourself for the one? What are your strengths and weaknesses? Where's your walk with God now? 2. It's very easily to fall into the misguided belief that it will occur "supernaturally" when throughout most of the Scriptures, it isn't so. 3. There really is no "right one" in the Scriptures as the media might have you picture or at least it doesn't behave in the way that Scriptures teach. Proverbs explain the type of person you should marry, but doesn't give a formula for finding "the one. " When you don't practice loving God in prayer and reading his word, you won't grow. When you don't grow spiritually, you not only fail to recognize the right one, but are bound to a devastating relationship. That's why people who are inactive with their faith will probably not find any marriage partner and end up blaming God for being single. That being said, what appears to be "the perfect guy/girl" isn't because according to the Scriptures: All have sinned in the eyes of God (Rom. 5:12). Gen. 2:23-24 " 23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." What can we learn from Adam and Eve? Evidenced by their capacity to sin, they were not perfect or almost flawless, but they were compatible to face the hardships in life. Their purpose was to unite as a married couple in the face of their punishment for sin. The relationship between Adam and Eve was not built upon moral perfection, but began as a sinful one which through faith eventually gave rise to the Messiah. Ephesians 4:15 "we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church." As you can see, we are growing in Jesus. We are not just saved from our sins, but we gradually come to known him fully. Hypothetically, what would happen if a man got into a relationship with a woman at the wrong time? it will not work. Both may lack self discipline. Both may be selfish and unable to resolve conflict. Both may lack patience, gentleness, confidence, etc. They simply need time for the love of Jesus to develop to the point where the two can support one another. Conclusion: The right one is not a person found through prayer, it's made by a gradual relationship with God because every Christian begins a sinner.
sex education for secondary level

I would like to also thank those of you that will be joining in and giving their incite in the issue at hand. My opponent has proposed a debate in which she feels that by the time children reach secondary school they are already sexually active. Although I do agree that children should know about sex before they become sexually active I feel that school is the wrong place for children to learn about sex. School is a place in which children should be learning the tools they will need in order to become successful human. Most of the success of course would be in the job world. In the United States schools are government ran (not quite sure how it works in the Philippines). Hopefully my opponent can enlighten me in the funding in which the education draws from. In the United States many children in Elementary School (Primary Education) are and have been receiving sex education for many years now. I can personally attest to the fact that in 1994 I was learning Sex education in my primary educational institute. Students have been learning sex education very early for years and the data collected from 2007 shows that teen pregnancies are at their highest levels ever. So obviously the education no matter how young it is, is not working. I think the better way to solve this is for parents to own up responsibility for the children they have created and teach them right from wrong just as the past generations of people have been doing since the beginning of time. i feel that people learn sex through family and religious institutions rather than at a government funded education system in which they should be learning reading, writing and arithmetic. If one is really serious about lowering pregnancy rates they should take away many of the incentives that children are receiving like free health care and food paid for by those that are working hard and that have made the right decisions in their life. I know that you truly believe these programs work but I feel that children are better of learning from loved ones. I appreciate your view and I will await your response.