BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Tournament Debate: Zygotes Should be Recognized as Persons

IntroductionThis debate is part of Mikal's DDO Tier Tournaments Take 2.Round 1 of Mid Tier users.I thank schachdame for partaking in the tournament and I look forward to a hard fought debate.ResolutionPro's contention is that zygotes should be recognized as persons.DefinitionsPerson:6. Law: A human or organization with legal rights and duties. [1]Neither myself nor Con are Americans. Thus, the debate is more philosophical in nature and not fixated on the laws of any one nation.Rules• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.• 8k characters max. per round• 4 rounds• 72 hrs• Select Winner Voting• Judges: Mikal, YYW, orangemayhem, SeventhProfessor, Blade-of-Truth• 2 Week Voting Period (Please don't take that long judges!) Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
should drinking age be lowered

Well I don't beleive the drinking age should be lowered because teens are already irresponsible with alcohol. Lowering the drinking age would just cause more problems. Teeans learn to drive around age 15. Say we lowered the drinking age to 18 years old. Teens get there licsence and then bam two years later they can buy alcohol. The teens of america need to have that space so that the can learn to drive to the best of their ability, so they can learn to drive more responsibly. And that leaves more teens to get peer pressured into buying alcohol for underage drinkers. It would just make more teen fatalities and easier for 10-18 to get alcohol.
High School Diploma

Since this is the finale of the debate, I will attempt to prove my point with the rest of my debate. The following are my reasons and contentions. The majority of knowledge is taught from kindergarten to 8th grade- Skills like as science, history, reading, math, and government are already taught. Students have to spend at least 8 or more years to learn the skills that are only needed in the U. S. And those who do decide to go will get better education because those that don"t need higher education will not attend high school, so those that want to learn will not have to deal with students who disrupt classes, or cause the lower educational standards since those students that do not care about high school education don"t study or pay attention. To prove this, nations like China have superior high schools since it"s not mandated. And in these statements, I believe that there is an effect on not only the students, but on the school faculty as well. Government immersion is a big player in the educational job. Teachers/professors have to find a sensitive balance in getting required government rules and finding the specific needs of each child in their classroom. Big government immersion only strengthens the problem. Teachers will be given an extreme non-linear set of rules and expected to make each child come out with the same exact academic performance, despite the fact that everyone"s unique. The most non-linear requirements of the Common Core and its test-based standards makes it all the harder for teachers/professors to modify their classroom needs and will only makes students good test-takers instead of the educated individuals that everyone expects" a problem that will only grow without removing or changing the Common Core system. To prove this, a survey conducted by John M. Bridgeland, John J. DiIulio, Jr. , and Karen Burke Morison cited a number of reasons why students decided to drop out of high school. Though the individual reasons greatly varied, several of them have very similar thoughts. 47% of dropouts have said that classes were uninteresting, 65% reported frequently missing class and 81% said that their education should have been more relevant to real world jobs. Simply mandating graduation for these students won"t produce positive results. According to this survey, 32% had been held back repeatedly before dropping out. Before taking the major step of mandating high school graduation, it would be logical to look for new ways to engage students and make their education relevant to their careers Works Cited: "Should High School Graduation Be Mandatory? - TheCollegeConservative. com "Curent High School Education Should Not Be Mandatory. " Debate. org "International Test Scores. " AcademicFailure. com "Why should you earn your high school diploma - Study. com" And now that I have shown my reasons, I will let BoomtheBear take his turn. Good luck and merry Christmas.
High School Diploma

There is a man named bob. Bob is in high school and is failing several classes. One day, he decides to drop out, so he does. After he drops out, bob creates a plumbing business and loves every day of it. In his first year, he makes $50,000 fixing pipes in peoples homes. Bob also has a friend names Roy, who didn"t drop out of high school. Roy does great in school and graduates with flying colors. Eventually, Roy goes to collage so he will get a high paying white-collar job. After Roy graduates collage with flying colors, he is unable to find employment anywhere because all of the white-collar jobs have been taken. So now Roy is homeless and is $30,000 in debt, which he can"t pay. Roy can"t get a blue-collar job because he doesn"t know how to do anything but white-collar stuff. Eventually, Bob hires Roy for $12 an hour and Roy manages to pay off his debt. My argument is to prove that people don"t need a fancy high school diploma to be successful in life. The Goal is that getting a high school Diploma shouldn"t mandatory. While high school is not mandatory, People are strongly urged to stay in school and graduate. The contentions are the following. Fewer resources will be used in teaching- the core requirements taught in high school aren"t usually needed, especially for lower skilled, blue-collar employment. Those that do need it are the white-collar jobs. Therefore, the system is creating economic waste by mandating a service that doesn"t benefit to the majority of people. If getting a high school diploma wasn"t mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering the price of education, and the extra money could be spent on things that need extra cash, such as improving infrastructure, extra cash to get rid of debt, and tax breaks.
That not following religion is the best way to live your life.

This debate was hardly a waste of time. It made me think very hard about the subject at hand. Extend all my arguments and refutations from rounds 1 and 2 that my opponent failed to respond to. My opponent has said that religion is a bad way to live life; he has only argued only that the practicing of only Christianity and Islam is a bad way to live life. He has offered no argument or evidence against Islam being a bad way to live one's life, and minimal evidence against Christianity. But this entire debate has been undertaken assuming that Christianity is false. If it is true, then Christianity is the best way to live one's life. C. S. Lewis writes, ". .. if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. " This Epicurean view of Christianity is echoed by thinkers such as Desiderius Erasmus and Thomas More. If Christianity is false, then a significant portion of a believer's life has been wasted. If it is false, and the hedonists are right, then they have lived in a way that is the most pleasurable (though all their endeavors are necessarily meaningless). If Christianity is true, then the hedonists will find that, in doing what they thought best, they have missed the greatest joys of all, forever doomed to a fate like that of Tantalus, but a thousand times worse. But if Christianity is true, the believer will receive joy and pleasure and all good things in more excess than can be imagined.
That not following religion is the best way to live your life.

I'm calling this one an epic fail on my part. I admit I wasn't properly prepared, expressed myself poorly, didn't cite enough evidence and I honestly didn't have the time to post a third round. I'm writing this a work 10 minutes before the end of a very long week. I apologise for wasting my opponents time and plan to post a similar topic in the future with a lot more preparation. Peace.
That not following religion is the best way to live your life.

My opponent has the burden of proof, and he has not met this burden of proof. My opponent doesn't believe in an all-powerful being; this makes him not an atheist but rather an A-Christian/Muslim. Remember, my opponent is trying to prove that following religion is a bad way to live life, not that some sects of Christianity or Islam are a bad way to live your life. His only real argument is that religion causes one to focus on the afterlife and not enjoy oneself. His only reason for supporting this is that it causes oneself to focus on an afterlife, following "rules and ancient dogmatic rubbish"! The problem is that many, many religions do not have both rules and theology e. g. Buddhism (no theology) and tribal religions (no codes of conduct). My opponent argues against Christianity and Islam, not against religion. It is also here that my opponent asserts a priori that the best way to live life is to maximize one's pleasure at any given moment. This a priori is completely unsupported, and can only begin to hold any weight in which the only good is pleasure. This is completely unproved, and must be for my opponent's argument to mean anything in the debate. Indeed, under the modern psychology of Viktor Frankl, religion is a much better way to live one's life. Under said psychology, happiness is gained not through pleasure but rather through finding meaning. To exist is to suffer, to live is to find meaning in the suffering. Many, many, many people gain and have gained happiness from their religious experience regardless of its truth value because it fulfills the first desire of human psychology: a meaning for existence. Since there is no meaning in my opponent's worldview, his approach to living life cannot cause happiness as, under his reasoning, all human endeavor is meaningless, thus taking any potential for human happiness. My opponent slams rules of conduct. Apparently, following rules advocated by the religions that have rules of conduct is bad, which is surprising since he then advocates the Golden Rule in his third paragraph, which is present in some form in at least Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, and Christianity (and probably in many others as well). Here's a list of assumptions my opponent makes about religion. Unless he supports that religion, in general, meets these assumptions, he has not proved his side and loses the debate. 1) Religion always focuses on the afterlife and rules of conduct. (Paragraph 2) 2) The best way to live one's life is to maximize one's pleasure felt at any given moment (P.2) 3) The only purpose of religious teaching is to further society (P.3) 4) Religious teaching cannot conform to reason (P.3) 5) God sends people to hell for disobeying his word, assuming He exists and has the power to do so. (P.4) 6) Religion prevents oneself from living in the here an now (Song Quote)
That not following religion is the best way to live your life.

Hello debaters! I have very strong anti-Religious views, which is why I choose to be an Atheist, in that I don't believe that there is an all-powerful being, called God or Allah. I firmly believe that when you die, you know no more. Like going to sleep forever, with no dreams. The same as a fly you swat. BLAM! It's over. The scientific explanation for Earth; that it is a speck of rock in one of an infinite number of Universes, which just so happens to be the perfect environment for Carbon life seems logical to me. Religion then, seems like a waste of time to me, but more than that, it seems to cause people to not enjoy their lives as much as they could. Instead, they focus on the afterlife and their souls preparation for heaven. Following rules and ancient dogmatic rubbish. I expect that even without Religion, we would have laws stopping us from killing and stealing from each other. It's logical. I don't want my stuff stolen, so I should steal other peoples stuff. I don't want my family or myself to be raped, so I shouldn't do it. "God's word" is just reason; logic. My conclusion is that if God really created me, how can he punish me for being an Atheist? If he is omniscient, surely he knew I would not believe in Him before he even created the Heavens and the Earth. Sending me to Hell for an eternal punishment would just be cruel, and if he is a cruel god, he isn't worth worshipping anyway. "Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today" -John Lennon, Imagine
Deathstroke is a better character in Arrow than Black Canary

Black Canary stepped away from the League of Assassins and Deathstroke is still killing people and sending other people to kill innocents. She might be back with the League, but she was no longer happy with killing people for simple reasons. It was not Sarah's fault that Ivo decided to kill Shado. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Deathstroke is the only one in control of what he does and due to the drug he took, he has degenerated into a crazy killing machine bent on hurting Olver Queen and killing everyone he loves. Deathstroke does not have good motives and even though he can fight better that does not make his character better.
Deathstroke is a better character in Arrow than Black Canary

Deathstroke kills people that stand in his way of Oliver Queen and his revenge against them. Black Canary was part of the League of Assassins who killed people for no absolute reason. He has an excuse unlike Black Canary. Black Canary helped Ivo torture prisoners. It's Sarah's fault for turning Deathstroke into what he is now. He is better at fighting which is why he can beat up team arrow which is why he is better.
Deathstroke is a better character in Arrow than Black Canary

Black Canary or Sarah Lance is a better character than Deathstroke. Deathstroke is a villain who has killed many people out of revenge which is not justifiable because he kills people who had no correlation to Shado's death. Black Canary had a hard life too. She was forced to live on a boat for a year with a crazy doctor that was the only protection she had from being killed or worse. I admit that Deathstroke had a hard life, but that does not excuse his actions. Just because he can beat up team Arrow does not mean that he is better than them.
Deathstroke is a better character in Arrow than Black Canary

The character Deathstroke or Slade Wilson is a better character than Black Canary due to his story line and his ability to defeat team arrow in minutes. Deathstroke has had a much harder life than Black Canary. He was originally good but the combination of an experimental drugs and being lied to about his love lead him to a darker path. He can beat Black Canary easily in a fight with team Arrow. Alone she is no match for him. He is out for vengeance and this is the only reason Black Canary has survived.
Students should wear school uniforms.

You need to cite your evidence because I feel as if you are making these statistics up - please provide links and citations. What someone wears will not change if they are going to kill themselves or not - that is an obsurd reasoning. It may help to not wear a spacific outfit to block out the bullies - but bullying is a more complex issue, as I stated before, then just someone's wardrobe. And bullying does not really have to do with uniforms at all - if a student is being bullied because of their clothing in a public school, then they can just move to a private school with uniforms as a requirement. More uniforms = more money needed to buy them? Where is the board of education going to find the money to pay for these uniforms? Who will manufacture and make them? There are much more problems associated with your claim then you think.
Students should wear school uniforms.

Not all every day kids would do those 3 options. They would be to nervous to tell because they think the bully would make fun of them even more. Also 30% of students kill themselves because of bullies. You can see for your self on Bullying and suicide statistics. Do you know over a 160,000 kids don't go to school because of bullying. I think peoples feelings are more important then what to where I mean that is common sense to chose peoples emotions.
Students should wear school uniforms.

What percentage of kids who do not wear uniforms kill themselves because of bullying about their clothes? Please back up your claim with clear evidence. If kids are being bullied because of what they are wearing - then they have several options before taking their lives: 1. telling a counselor or adult 2. switching outfits 3. defending themselves. Just because someone insults someone's outfit does not mean that they are going to kill themselves - and if that is the case then please prove it to me. The school systems right now in our country are an option - you can either go to private or public school. Under ammendment 1 of the constitution - every citizen in the united states has the freedom of speech, press, and religion. What clothes we wear is considered to be freedom of speech since we are expressing whom we are. If we make all schools provide their students with uniforms - then we are taking away the student's rights of freedom of speech, violating ammendment one of our constitution. Making this action highly unconstitutional. We should leave it at a choice for a parent to decide for their kid to go to a school where they wear a uniform or not because then freedom is still in everyone's hands and they can choose if they want to wear a uniform or not. Making kids wear a uniform will not decrease the amound of suicide in our youth - it is a much more complex issue then that.
Students should wear school uniforms.

I did some research on Patch.com and 50% of kids get bullied because of their clothes. Students want to wear what they want but it's only for a few hours and it's not going to kill you. Various People around the world kill themselves because of bullying. I know parents rather have their kids not where what they want for less causes of bullying. Students crying every day and night and we will put a stop to it if we have school uniforms. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Citations: http://patch.com...
Who's better NHL goalie Cory Schnieder or Roberto Luongo

Cory Schneider is clearly better he is a talented 26 year old with limitless potential. 38-17-4-4 record and a minute 2.24 GAA (including an incredible 1.97 GAA last year). His .937 save percentage last season was second only to the rejuvenated Brian Elliott of the St. Louis Blues. As you can see is a very versatile goal tender who can get the job done in any situation.
0 is an even number.

If you follow the pattern 3 is odd 2 is even 1 is odd so 0 is even. This just makes sense to me but I do not understand why people think it is neutral. Also, the definition of odd is an integer is even if it is 'evenly divisible' by two and odd if it is not even according to Wikipedia and Google. 0 divided by 2 equals zero therefore zero is neither neutral nor odd. This is the definition and the definition is what the word means and cannot be changed!
0 is an even number.

First of all I understand Wikipedia is not always trustworthy. That is why I looked at the Google definition. If this is not enough Mathworld.wolfram.com/EvenNumber.html agrees that zero is an even number. This is stated in the second sentence. Second of all, you have not shown any prove that 0 is a neutral number. As long as it is divisible by two it is even. 0 is divisible by two. What do you not get about the definition. 0 divided by 2 equals 0. It is an integer that divides evenly into a whole number.
Is the Wii U today like the virtual boy was 20 years ago.

I hope this will be an interesting 2 round debate Arguments ===================== 1. Entertainment The Virtual Boy failed not only because it made your eyes bleed, but the games were not fun. No one really enjoyed any of the games on the Virtual Boy. However, the Wii U has some very fun and popular titles, such as Pikmin 3, Super Mario 3D land, and the recent Super Smash Bros. 4. Look at YouTube, review sites, heck, even ask a friend. They will tell you that SSB4 is really fun and they enjoy it. I love the Wii U and it has lots of potential. It just needs some to release some more really great titles (Zelda U looks promising). 2. Sales Although not that stellar, the Wii U isn't doing all that bad. Sure, it doesn't have as much sales as it's opponents and the original Wii. However, sales are still climbing. Wii U skyrocketed recently with big time releases of SSB4 and Mario Kart, the Wii U has been going up in sales. [1] ================ Sources ================= [1]: http://www.cinemablend.com...
Is the Wii U today like the virtual boy was 20 years ago.

The virtual boy from nintendo that came out in 1995 was a huge failure and did not do well in the market because it did not have good games and the technology was lackluster. But could the same thing be said for the Wii U today? Yes it could because if you look at the sales of the Wii U and its games that go with it the sales are much worse than its compitition, and it sold much worse than the wii in its first months on the market.
Obama will not win the election, GUARANTEED.

My opponent appears to have simply given up on this debate. He has conceded all my previous points and now appears to be reneging on his own. His original claim was that the one reason why Barack Obama would never win the presidency was because of Larry Sinclair. He seems to have completely abandoned this argument in favor of several new ones, including Senator Obama's lack of experience and his liberal voting record. The first claim begs the question as to whether or not this is even a negative quality at all. Americans are dissatisfied with the current status quo in American politics, a status quo which John McCain has been a part of for decades. Many see Senator Obama's "lack of experience" as an asset and gives them hope that he can bring about change in Washington (. http://www.usatoday.com...). Senator Obama's record as the most liberal senator is also of little detriment. John Kerry was listed as the most liberal senator in 2003, and were it not for a poorly managed campaign and a host of public speaking gaffes, two problems Obama doesn't have, he would be the current presidential incumbent. This ranking also raises the issue of John McCain's missed votes. Senator McCain was the only member of the Senate not to be ranked by the National Journal due to the number of votes he missed. On the votes he did manage to show up for, his conservative score was a paltry 59 out of 100 (. http://nj.nationaljournal.com...). Neither of these claims rules out Barack Obama as the front runner, much less a contender, in the 2008 presidential race. My opponent has failed to prove his argument to be superior, or even hold any weight for that matter. As one final piece of evidence that Obama has a leg up in the race, even some of John McCain's top adviser's like Obama so much that don't want to face him in a race. Mark McKinnon, former Bush adviser, and currently in charge of McCain's ad campaigns, says he would step down if Barack Obama were to win the Democratic nomination. "I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal," said McKinnon (. http://blogs.abcnews.com...). That seems to be enough to debunk my opponent's assertion of a guaranteed Obama loss.