BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children need more time at school in P.E & Sport lessons

I wish we can have a fun, joyful debate. First off, my opponent has no definitions or contentions. This makes it difficult to debate certain points over others and of course figure out what my opponent is exactly talking about. But in the spirit of debate, I digress. Now to jump into my opponent points: To refute my opponent first point about they do not get supervised to "play" games at playtime/lunch time so they can sit and chat makes little to no sense. The kids do not need to be supervised in recess specifically to play games. When I was a child, I played many games ranging from Kickball to Football at recess and we didn't need a gym teacher. However, during recess you do have supervision from other teachers in the area to make sure everything is alright. I don't get how my opponent has a problem that the kids don't play games at lunch time. The whole point of lunch time is to eat your lunch, and sit/chat with your friends. Now to refute my opponent second point about the only time they have to do physical activity is at sport lessons is wrong. There is always after-school where the kids can join a league, go to the park with their parents and or friends among other things. Also, another way children can not have a weight problem is by healthy eating. Children are taught very early about the food pyramid. Healthy eating also helps lead to no future weight problems along with excerising after school. There are plenty of disadvantages with children having more time for P. E each day. I'll just list one reasoning: 1. ) Less time in the classroom. - What classes will have to be shortened because of this longer P. E class? Will school be longer? What about the bus system, the system is set up on kids getting out of school at a set time. Now my opponent once again seems to ignore the whole point of least fifteen minutes for recess and of course playing sports along with excerising after school. But in the spirit of debate I will focus on my opponent last point: The daily recommendation of physical activity is 30 minutes a day. Now my opponent has stated that children at most schools get a hour and forty five minutes over a two day period. That would be 105 mins. Then my opponent throws in the whole 85 mins or 1.25 hours below what a child should be getting between a 5 day period. But it isn't a 5 day period, it is a 2 day period. Over a two day period, a child should be getting 60 mins of P. E according to my opponent. Well a child actually ends up getting 105 mins according to my opponent. This is actually MORE then the daily recommendation of physical activity. Now if we keep this up over a five day period, a child should be getting 150 minutes of P. E. Now under my opponent OWN math, a child is getting 210 minutes of P. E in FOUR days alone. Not even counting the fifth day. So therefore, one of the biggest basis of my opponent argument has crumbled and fallen. Final Points: My opponent had no definitions or contentions. My opponent points were all refuted. One of my opponent major points was completely wrong.
Children need more time at school in P.E & Sport lessons

children need more time with Sport and P.E lessons at school. they do not get supervised to "play" games at play time/ lunch time so they can sit and chat. the only time they HAVE to do physical activity is at sport lessons - this can affect children with weight problem and there is no disadvantage with having more daily intake of sport each day. the daily reccomendation of physical activity in 30 mins a day. Children at most primary schools only get 1.45 HOURS, over a two day period!! that's 85 mins or 1.25 hours below what children should be getting between a 5 day period. this of course is not enough and there is no harm in increasing the children's sport intake.
Lelouch Vi Britannia is dead at the end of Code geass

Sorry readers, of this debate, it seems like we won't have a decisive conclusion or will we? My opponent has not offered one fact or a link to a fact during this entire debate. I offered video and a link or two. My opponent has only offered conjecture while I have offered speculation. We went off on tangents in this debate going to discuss DVD releases instead of the topic."AND this is the part of the argument where I laugh. Con has clearly said I'm only making speculations but what Con HAS FORGOTTEN is that Charles WAS CLEARLY shot in the heart, So I ask Con to rewatch the anime and that Con is only making pointless points that are merely speculations and con hasn't gone to far to watch the anime as this debate goes fourth."It made me laugh when I realized my opponent has not offered a single ounce of evidence We are supposed to be superstitious and believe what he says is true without question. "AS for my evidence, I specifically told Con to rewatch some scenes to prove my evidence, if Con is to lazy to do so, then so be it, however the evidence is their for the voters."The voters and I are supposed to watch an anime because my opponent refuses to offer evidence. This is not evidence on the part of my opponent and merely conjecture.My opponent, ignored my most valid points throughout this debate and either conceded them and agreed with them. Most notably my opponent did not respond or acknowledge this point:"Then my opponent even goes so far is to discuss something is "weird." The appropriate question is how many strong characters in Code Geass are normal? Very few are normal with immortals running wild and genius teenagers taking control of countries. My opponent must not think that is "weird" either. Yet a genius teenager who hung around an alleged immortal woman squirting out blood out of his heart must mean "death" and him surviving it would be "weird." My opponent has tried to apply logic to a show with little to no logic worth noting. This further shows why my opponent never acknowledged my claim that Lelouch would never allow himself to willingly be killed because he is far too selfish. If my opponent denies this I will offer tons of evidence next round to support this claim. "My opponent even went to on to concede another one of my points:"It is merely another ploy by Lelouch. Lelouch feigned death multiple times throughout the series. Other characters thought he was dead when he wasn't. These events can not be denied either. I will list these events if Pro stands to deny their existence."My Opponent: "I will admit that Lelouch is a really great mind player"My opponent has not once address the outlandish tendecies on the show and we have seen him try to bring rationality to a world that is irrational.On top of all these different points, there is going to be a Code Geass 3 which includes Lelouch. Lelouch being in Code Geass 3 has officially been confirmed as well[1]. This officially refutes my opponent's lack of points altogether. Code Geass 3 is supposed to be released in 2015.[1]http://codegeass.us...[2]http://www.fanpop.com...http://www.youtube.com...Vote Con please.
Lelouch Vi Britannia is dead at the end of Code geass

"Lelouch is not dead for the following two reasons. I will refrain from going into details until the next round and present an opening argument. 1. The Japanese version showed Lelouch being alive. The fact that the Japanese version had Lelouch being alive intially cannot be argued against. They removed the scene because they wanted the viewers to imagine what happened. 2. At the end of Code Geass, CC is asking someone a question and she says"right Lelouch." This is highly suggestive that Lelouch is alive." The Japanese version never showed Lelouch being alive, if con is speaking about the scene at the end with the carriage ride. (Assuming the Japanese version is what I think it is) If Con goes to any anime site with the last episode of Code geass R2, (with anime sub, which is a Japanese version) the carriage rider's face is never revealed. At the end when C2 is asking someone a question and says "right Lelouch" is simply a misunderstanding. As you can see in the scene C2 is looking up in the sky, and many characters in other animes or movies tend to look up to the sky to represent the character that's dead, being in Heaven living in peace. Regardless of the youtube's video claiming as the original Japanese ending, anyone can make a fake video and name the title as an original. I also want to raise the argument, how could Lelouch have survived after clearly being stabbed in the heart and staggered while he spoke to Nunally and clearly he closed his eyes at the very end of his last words. This event cannot be denied and is a mere fact, so I ask con to argue against this point.
Lelouch Vi Britannia is dead at the end of Code geass

Lelouch is not dead for the following two reasons. I will refrain from going into details until the next round and present an opening argument. 1. The Japanese version showed Lelouch being alive. The fact that the Japanese version had Lelouch being alive intially cannot be argued against. They removed the scene because they wanted the viewers to imagine what happened. http://www.youtube.com... 2. At the end of Code Geass, CC is asking someone a question and she says"right Lelouch." This is highly suggestive that Lelouch is alive.
Legal Sales of Human Organs

We should legalize the sale of human organs. If the government gave the organs to the people who need them the most without cost, we'll still be dealing with the issue of not having enough organs to give to everyone. In addition we're already doing that (organ donations) and right now the supply is extremely low while the demand is high. If that method's already failing we should try legalizing the sale of human organs because then we'll get these people the organs they need to survive. If we allow the government to sell the organs to the people who need it the most, despite whether they're rich or poor, we'll be giving a lot more people a much better chance at survival. The government can come up with a financial plan (such as insurance) to help the poor pay for the donations while the rich can obviously afford it. However, keep in mind that some of the rich people may be the ones that need these donations the most. The issue at hand is not having a supply, legalizing the sales of human organs will help boost the supply. Therefore, we should legalize the sales of human organs.
Legal Sales of Human Organs

Allowing the government to be the only ones to legally sell organs will not neutralize the problem of organs going to people with the most money, because only people with money will be able to afford the organs in the first place. There are many poor families who are desperate for replacement organs in order to save their loved ones, but they will not be able to afford to buy these organs if the government is selling them. Since there are not enough donors to match the high demand for human organs, that means the price for these organs would be extremely high (supply & demand). Paying donors for their contribution has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Sure, it would cause more people to want to donate their organs but it will not solve the problem of people dying because they cannot afford a replacement organ. It will still be difficult to give organs to patients that really need them if they are being sold by the government. Rather than selling human organs, the government should give them to the people who need them the most without cost.
Legal Sales of Human Organs

Legalizing the sales of human organs should be legal. If we allow the government to be the only ones to legally sell human organs they can evenly distribute/sell them to the people who need it the most. In addition, this will neutralize the problem of organs going to the person with the most money. Instead of having people bid on human organs like eBay, the government will ensure fairness and give everyone an opportunity to get the organs they need to survive. There's simply not enough donors to match the high demand for human organs. Rather than allowing most of the the people on the waiting list (for a donation) to die, we can give them another chance of life. Paying donors for their contribution is an option America should explore because our current strategy is not working. We should legalize the sales of human organs.
Legal Sales of Human Organs

We should legalize the sales of human organs because everyday people die waiting to receive a transplant. According to the New York Times, in 2010, 34,000 people joined the waiting list for a kidney and fewer than 17,000 received one. In addition, organ donors will be compensated nicely by the government and this will encourage many people to donate. If we continue to wait on people to donate on their own we will lose more lives than we are saving each year. We can allow the government to distribute the organs to those who need it the most. Instead of selling to the people directly only the government should be allowed to be legally buy them. This will rule out poor people failing to get a donation because they can't afford them and the rich people being able to buy everything they need. (sources: http://www.nytimes.com...)
Android Cop vs Robocop.

"RoboCop includes themes regarding the media, gentrification, corruption, authoritarianism, greed, privatization, capitalism, identity, dystopia, and human nature. It received positive reviews and was cited as one of the best films of 1987, spawning a franchise that included merchandise, two sequels, a television series, two animated TV series, a television mini-series, video games and a number of comic book adaptations/crossovers. The film was produced for a relatively modest $13 million.[1]" Wikipedia has my back on this one, because the more that a movie has of a franchise, the more it is a very good film because let's look at Transformers, it has like 60 TV Shows, 14 movies, and a new upcoming fourth Michael Bay film because everyone knows that it is one of the best films of all times always have sequels and tv shows." This proves Robocop is garbage. Crustiness = garbage.
Android Cop vs Robocop.

"RoboCop includes themes regarding the media, gentrification, corruption, authoritarianism, greed, privatization, capitalism, identity, dystopia, and human nature. It received positive reviews and was cited as one of the best films of 1987, spawning a franchise that included merchandise, two sequels, a television series, two animated TV series, a television mini-series, video games and a number of comic book adaptations/crossovers. The film was produced for a relatively modest $13 million.[1]" Wikipedia has my back on this one, because the more that a movie has of a franchise, the more it is a very good film because let's look at Transformers, it has like 60 TV Shows, 14 movies, and a new upcoming fourth Michael Bay film because everyone knows that it is one of the best films of all times always have sequels and tv shows.
Being gay is a choice, God did not "make" them that way

First i want to say, yes i am attracted to the opposite sex, very strongly. I have a girl friend and she knows my feelings and agrees with me. You can think that the same gender is cute but still be straight. that's how i am. i think some guys are cute but i also wouldn't date them. Again you are wrong with the whole "test" thing. They have tests and if u research it, you'll find that they do have attraction to opposite genders. They have yet to find and record a newborn that prefers the same sex. There are many people who are living lives preferring one thing but going with another. People a lot of time prefer sweets but want to loose weight and stay with vegetables and fruits even if they don't like it. It's the way of life and the way god wants things. You may not believe God exists, but when you're burning in hell then you'll see what I mean. My whole point to this argument is that GOD did not make people gay. You completely turned it around trying to say that god does not exist. You obviously are a stubborn close minded fool because Gay's do have the same rights, that's like discriminating against another race. and it contradicts ur argument. That's like saying since blacks don't have a choice of being black then that means we should take away there right to marry only because they are black. I believe they have the same rights because i believe that the american constitution is right when it says all citizens are equal.
Being gay is a choice, God did not "make" them that way

I understand that there are tests that show they just naturally prefer the same sex but it isnt the same with children. They have run tests on newborns and rant he test on 2 years olds, 4 year olds and so on. Newborn through 4 year olds don't have the same results as they do when they are 6 or older. The same children who, when they were younger, prefered the opposite sex yet when they got older they prefered the same sex. Meaning they weren't born that way. The way they were raised or the things they saw, persuaded them to prefer the same sex. I'm not trying to be a gay-basher here, I believe they have the same rights, but I'm just tired of people saying it is their choice because it is. Even if they did prefer the same sex, they can still CHOOSE to be with the oposite sex and grow up being straight yet prefering the same sex. I honestly do feel a little atraction for the same sex but I'm gonna spend my whole life with the opposite sex because thats what God wants. And as for the existance of God, can you see wind? no, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Throughout history there have been actual recordings that science can't explain. This debate isn't even about whether or not God exists and I'd love to keep going on about that, but there isn't enough space for me to continue on that subject.
religon

Even if we weren't taught that there was a god, we would still have myths and legends. Each country created their own gods and they believed in those gods. They made those gods so they can have something to trust in and also to give themselves faith. If you had a lucky charm, you wouldn't really wear it around randomly. You would have a reason why you wee carrying it around. God in my opinion is real because I am a Christian and I something to believe so I know when there is a big storm then I would still be protected or when I have no choice but to give up my job, I could believe in my myth or whatever you say and so I know that things will be better. Mostly everyone has something they believe in, and nobody should think it is outrageous.
Lorde is the best idol singer for children

I agree with almost all of your last points, and I admit I misread the title of the album. Oops! You have convinced me that Lorde is a good role model for kids, but that still wasn't the goal of the debate. The goal was to claim that she was the BEST idol singer for children. Many other singers could deserve that title much more than her, like Kelly Clarkson. She has shown us countless times that women don't need to be a size 2 to be beautiful or likeable, and all you need is confidence. She displayed that when she shut down a body shaming critic with class saying "Oh, and she's said something nasty about me? That"s because she doesn"t know me. I"m awesome! It doesn"t bother me. It"s a free world. Say what you will. "(Bumble. com) If this kind of confidence could rub off on her young fans, it could definitely help them deal with bullies/haters and help them appreciate themselves better. She has also penned many hits that give inspiration to kids. "Stronger" talks about turning the "bad" moments in your life and turning them into strength, "Dark Side" is about admitting and revealing imperfections and showing how "nobody's a picture perfect," and "Breakaway" is about flying away from your comfort zone or the norm to reach for the stars and accomplish your dreams. Kelley also has donated to 25 different causes, (looktothestars. org) and she really is just a great person on and off the stage. I searched through the internet to find one thing bad about her, and I simply couldn't. She is a VERY good role model. To sum up what I've been trying to say, Lorde is a good role model compared to most singers these days. She doesn't sing about drugs, sex, or show off her body inappropriately at all. However, she has talked bad about countless celebrities, some of which were "bad", but some of which were "good. " This doesn't make her a bad role model, but it doesn't make her the best like you claimed. This is noticeable when comparing her to Kelley Clarkson, whom I consider a much better role model than Lorde. Unlike Lorde, she has never bad-mouthed anyone, even the people that said "Jesus, what happened to Kelly Clarkson? Did she eat all of her backing singers? "(Bumble. com) She has also donated to 22 charities v. s Lorde's one, (looktothestars. org) and her songs and personality are definitely things that you want a kid to be inspired by. Lorde's a great person and I love her songs, but she's not the absolute best idol singer.
Lorde is the best idol singer for children

Her album name is Pure Heroine, not Pure Heroin. (You can check it here: https://en.wikipedia.org...) Heroine means the female hero, not the drug. You said that she critized a lot of models, artists, singers. Yes, it"s true. But she only critized people, who are parading themself like a slut, and they showed the worst example for children. (I"m not saying that Selena Gomez isn't hard working or talented. I used to love her and I was a big fan of her until she began to behave like a bitch.) Or she critized them, because they always sing about how rich they are, or about their luxury. And that"s why I say that she is a very good ideal. Children usually can"t find differences between the good and the bad things so if nobody critizes the artists like Taylor Swift or Miley Cyrus, they may follow them. (In this case I mean the behaviour like a whore is the bad thing.) But let"s go back to the album. If you saw her album cover, you can see that it is very minimalist. Why? Because she wanted to avoid the image that is similar to the other popstars (I mean the kitschy, luxurious image). She wanted to show that she is an ordinary girl. That"s why she always sings about thought-provoking and real things. In her songs, she critized other artists. She is brave, isn"t she? She must be very brave and self-confident if she can quirk to the biggest popstars. And at the end, I think her voice is also really cool. :) It seems to me that Lorde is very respectable, because she represents something in all of us. A truth that wants to be heard. This is my last round, so thank you for debate with me. :)
Lorde is the best idol singer for children

Even though Lorde may not sing about drugs as frequently as other artists, you still can't argue that her album was titled Pure Heroin. Moving away from that, Lorde has shamefully criticized dozens of hardworking artists like Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez and has only apologized to a couple. Taylor Swift is an incredible artist, person, and role model, but Lorde clearly said that "she isn't a good role model for woman." For her to criticize another peer like that reveals she isn't a humble person because she thinks she is doing her job better than they are. She also promotes bullying to the kids listening to her. While Lorde acquires many positive traits, I would not consider her as a good role model for our world's youth.
Lorde is the best idol singer for children

She said: "But every song's like gold teeth, grey goose, trippin' in the bathroom, Blood stains, ball gowns, trashin' the hotel room. WE DON"T CARE, were driving cadillacs in our dream." She wanted to say that now everybody sing about the popstar"s money, their hotel rooms or their love life. But we don"t care about it, we don"t want to know it. I think she is the best, because she doesn"t parading herself like a whore. She is something different. Pop-music artists always flash tits and crotch and the most kids are actually smart enough to be sick of it.