BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Every school must have a uniform

Thank you for this argument, which I hope that you are enjoying it as I am. I applaud your well thought out argument, but to respond firstly, to your initial point that students should focus on their education rather than their clothes. This is true, but students aren't going to be any more productive in the morning than thinking of what the wear in front of the wardrobe. Like I said again, we can't expect students to easily adapt to adult life where they will need to pick their own attire, as well as make many other decisions, when months before, they had to have many things picked out for them. A survey on whether students would rather uniforms or not by Kids USA (Scholastic) has also resulted in most students choosing no. http://teacher.scholastic.com... I simply can't agree with my opponents point about school uniforms being more "cost-effective" than regular apparel, as whether or not there is a school uniform, students will always have their everyday clothes, and many students would prefer them, in a matter of whether they feel more comfortable or more like themselves. School uniform is just adding more items of clothing to a parent's shopping list and financial burden. Encouraging a student to take on the responsibility of choosing his/her own clothes should be a good thing, to encourage and teach organization, so that clothes are set out for the next day for example, so that students may still be punctual and reach school on time. I return the debate to my opponent.
Every school must have a uniform

Thank you for accepting my challenge.I will be giving five reasons to support my motion that school uniforms are necessary in schools all over the worldFirstly: School uniforms keep students focused on their education not their clothes .This is applicable mainly for the older students who need to focus on their studies or whatever they are interested in, to achieve their goals rather than wasting their time in front of the wardrobe thinking about what clothes to wear. It is not necessary to take decision of choosing clothes while going to school. That does not make someone independent. If they really want freedom to choose their clothes then they can do it while going to parties, picnics etc. SecondlySchool uniforms does not allow students to distinguish themselves as rich or poor. When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits can be eliminated. In a 2013 survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer Lands' End, 86% of school leaders said uniforms make "a significant, positive impact on peer pressure," and 64% said uniforms reduce bullying.ThirdlySchool uniforms make students disciplined and a sense of unity is incorporated into them. They identify themselves as the part of a team by wearing a uniform.Fourthly School uniforms can save parents money. Parents can reduce their financial burden when their children are limited to wearing one simple outfit every day. A national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 94% of those surveyed believe "one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel."FifthlySchool uniform makes the student punctual so that he or she may dress up quickly and reach the school at right time. I return this debate to my worthy opponent
Every school must have a uniform

I believe that uniforms should not be necessary, as having unique and different clothes lets a student express themselves, and be comfortable, and also to have the responsibility of having their own choices, and not be just put into the same group as everyone else, wearing the same clothes. It is very similar to freedom of speech, students should be allowed to wear what they want, within reason, and also saves the families of students money as school uniforms tend to be expensive. Also, just to shed some light on this. For older students nearing the end of school, how can we expect them to make important life decision when they can't even choose their own clothes?
Hell is a real place

Rules:1.) No trolling!2.) Have proper debate etiquette!3.) Use reliable sources! (This means do not use fake sources, e.g. "The Onion" or "Empire News")Layout:FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCESECOND ROUND IS FIRST ARGUMENTSTHIRD ROUND IS REBUTTALSLAST ROUND IS WHY YOU DID BETTER THAN YOUR OPPONENTDefinitions:Hell - "a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering. . . " (www.google.com/#q=define+hell) PRO ARGUES THAT HELL IS A REAL PLACECON ARGUES THAT HELL IS NOT A REAL PLACELet the debate begin and good luck to my opponent! :-)
Hell is a real place

For whatever reason, my opponent has forfeited the final round. I shall nevertheless fulfill the debate's requirements set by my opponent, and complete the final round. I shall first endeavor to show I provided a better argument by defending it against my opponents rebuttal. My opponent stated that my comparing the allegory of a "tongue of fire" to "lake of fire" to show that it is also allegory was trumped by the fact that Revelations mentions a lake of fire and brimstone (sulfur), for which there is no allegorical or symbolic comparison. I would like to show my opponent and the readers that such a comparison in fact exists in Isaiah 30:33, which reads in part, ...the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it. I believe we can safely say that hell is not in the Lord's mouth, so that should answer the question: "Now, where in the Bible does it symbolically compare something to burning sulfur?" I stated the lack of scriptural evidence and logic in "varying lakes of fire". My opponent agreed with the premise, but disagreed with the logic, stating: "but there is a theory that can be applied to these circumstances." But my opponent did not offer any kind of theory. Instead, he offered a personal guess with nothing to support it biblically. My opponent was unable to defeat the logic. My opponent states that it is purely my opinion that God would not allow someone to burn and be eaten by worms for all eternity. First, I believe I have sufficiently shown that such a place does not exist. Second, Revelations 20:13 provides proof that it is not my opinion, but fact. All will be judged after they suffer hell, and then "assigned" to his or her appropriate place, where they will suffer only regret for not having attained a better place. My opponent accused me of taking a passage out of context, but then failed to place that passage in context, instead providing only his own personal interpretation of said passage. On the other hand, my opponent used a number of passages out of context, and I provided additional passages to place many of them in context. Aside from defending my argument against rebuttal, it would be vain to boast a better argument when that is ultimately for the readers and any potential voters to decide. Suffice it to say, I believe I have presented a logical, well supported argument against a "lake of fire", where dead sinners will suffer for ever and ever, being an actual place of existence.
Hell is a real place

I will attempt to address all of the arguments made by him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rebuttal: The Bible doesn't capitalize "Hell"; therefore, it's not a placeWhile this is admittedly a convincing argument, it still doesn't disprove the existence of Hell. The Bible specifically states that Hell is a "lake of fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8). When the Bible mentions "hell" in lowercase it is most likely, as my opponent states, a state of being. However, this doesn't prove that there is not a place called Hell where the unforgiven go. Rebuttal: James 3:6 comparisonMy opponent claims that because the tongue is compared to fire in James 3:6 that the "lake of fire" must be symbolic; however, this is simply not true. In other versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV) Revelation 21:8 is translated to include the "lake of burning sulphur". Now, where in the Bible does it symbolically compare something to burning sulphur? Rebuttal: Varying degrees of sufferingI completely agree with my opponent on this one. This debate is not about whether or not certain people suffer more than others. As my opponent puts it, "there is no biblical support of varying lakes of fire". I completely agree with this, but there is a theory that can be applied to these circumstances. Perhaps God enables some to suffer more in the lake and others to suffer less. Rebuttal: The "just God" argumentMy opponent argues that a just and righteous God would not enable a person to suffer eternily. However, this is his opinion and only his. Many others believe it is fair for certain people to suffer eternily. Those who commit heinous acts such as murderers and rapists do deserve punishment. My opponent also argues that God will not leave a soul in hell. Acts 2:27 was taken out of context by my opponent. Acts 2:27 refers to Jesus's forgiveness so we can have eternal life, not that He pardons all from punishment.
Hell is a real place

Also, let it be known that all of the verses listed will be from the King James Version of the Bible. God bless and let the debate begin! :-)---------------------------------------------------------Jesus talks about hell in Mark 9:43-48 Mark 9:43-48 reads, "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. " Jesus specifically says "having two feet to be cast into hell". This part of the verse here proves that hell is indeed an actual place. In addition to proving that hell is a real place, this verse also shows that despite what many people believe, Jesus was not always "meek and gentle". He was serious and stern at times such as this. Hell is mentioned in Luke 16:23Luke 16:23, reads, "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom". This verse also mentions "in hell", indicating that hell is a real place. A personal accountA man by the name of Bryan Melvin, claims to have gone to hell and back. Considering he was an athiest prior to his experience, this is pretty strong evidence. [1] Sources:[1]
The religious policies of the Republican Party are bad for society.

The reason that the Constitution has the best answer for religious issues is because it lays out a "live and let live" policy. The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion onto people and the "Free Exercise Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion off of people. Restricting the government from imposing religious laws would not restrict the government from imposing any limits on freedom what so ever. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he said "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." People should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want as long as they don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. Laws against things such as murder, robbery, and rape are good for society because those laws protect people from other people. The government doesn't need religion to justify those laws. However, laws against "sins" such as homosexuality, prostitution, and drug use are bad for society because those laws impose a pointless limit on freedom by criminalizing things that don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. My opponent stated that my arguments are "morally based when we should be talking about actual dangers to society." The more time, manpower, and resources that the police use to stop people from committing "sins" that don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties is less time, manpower, and resources that they will have to stop people from committing acts that do infringe on other people's rights or liberties. Isn't that a danger to society? Restricting lawmakers from imposing religious laws onto their people does not restrict lawmakers from having religious convictions. Lawmakers can, for example, hold the belief that prostitution is a sin and, at the same time, hold the belief that it should be legal on the grounds that it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. Some of the Founding Fathers were Christians on a personal level and still believed that Church and State should be separate. I do not believe that the government should never be able to outlaw things that a religious group also happens to advocate. What I believe is that the government should make laws from a non-religious perspective. You don't need religion to figure out that outlawing murder is a good law for society. Murder is, rightfully, illegal because it is the act of one person infringing on the rights of another person. George Washington wrote in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state: "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
The religious policies of the Republican Party are bad for society.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is the best answer for religious issues, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." While the Republican Party follows the "Free Exercise Clause," they ignore the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" by trying to force Christianity onto people. Trying to make laws that would force people to obey the Bible doesn't make sense. If you obey the Bible, and it turns out to be the word of God, then you will go to heaven, and the people who disobeyed the Bible will go to hell. If you believe that things such as abortion, drug use, pornography, and homosexuality are sins, then don't get an abortion, don't use drugs, don't look at pornography, and don't be a homosexual. Just let other people make up their own minds. The Bible says that our ability to sin comes from God's desire for us to have free will.
is call of duty the best game

No its not the best game ever Its a generic, unoriginal, unchanging concept of gaming that gamers have grown bored Games like BF4 or Rainbow Six require much more thought and make you value your life in the game. In call of duty it takes 1 second. In BF4 you only respawn after watching the animation of the guy who killed you for 8 seconds and if you've been dying quickly have to wait more. Rainbow Six has no respawn Its like battlefront. Fun at first but quickly boring with lack of content.
Rap Battle: LeBron v.s Steph Curry

Lebron, you might be king, but I'm the Crown Prince The most exciting player since the hey-day of Vince Your lack of range is not hard to convince Your 3pt% makes me wince 'Can shoot a few threes' please, I'm the best ever When I fire one its automatic, like pulling a lever Sure since high school folks were kissing up to you Honestly I don't understand all of the hullabaloo You can ball, its true You got your own brand of shoes All fueled by the idiocy of the Lebron-loving crew I'm the real deal At #7 I was a steal With my lights-out game I'm reinventing the wheel With logic I appeal You will fall upon my steel You only care about your Kia automobiles
Rap Battle: LeBron v.s Steph Curry

Curry, it's right, you can shoot threes, But boi, try your luck In the paint, Cause all 360 degrees, Will get at trucked by the Saint Look Bruh, I was taken straight outta high school, Your lame game I take for my fuel, I beat you in Oakland, the whole world knows I rule! I left Miami to go back to my hometown, You's a home grown clown who thinks he hot cause he can shoot a few from downtown, I fall over if you sneeze? You must have Loser disease, Get back down on your knees, Cmon Steph, don't get too excited, This boi went to the NBA finals, just to find that he wasn't invited, Forget it, Don't take a wrong and try to right it, You should just take the bullet, and bite it Look at my hands, a ring on each finger, You fail at ball, rap, and your just as bad a singer, Imma let you go now Curry, Stop playin games, You just got defeated by King James
Rap Battle: LeBron v.s Steph Curry

((Yeah thanks for doing this. very creative debate) Round 2. You rap well, but.. I've got the sickest rhymes Dem' Splash Bros droppin' dimes Three point shooting is sublime LeBron sucks so bad he works part time You think LeBron's always brought his team heaven? Lets go back to 2011 Your 'Dream Team' got creamed You made Nowitzki look like Kareem You unraveled at the seams And you left Miami to grab a new team I don't need length or strength, I've got... Two hundred and seventy six 3's Can you do that? Please You call yourself the King but no one listens to what you decrees You'll fall over if I sneeze (flop) Or if there is a faint breeze (stop) And if you continue to challenge me I'll bring you to your knees Your move, LeCrybaby
Rap Battle: LeBron v.s Steph Curry

**thats no problem, it's better anyway not to swear, thanks for accepting! Look Steph, You look like you got anorexia every time I stand next to ya, I beat you in game 7, call Cleveland "celestia" Boi, it was at the end watching you exit, Your game was a bigger disaster than brexit, Yo, it's me, LeBron, the number one seed, You're only number one is trending on Ayesha's Twitter feed, LeBron's got strength, Compared to curry, I've got an extra foot in length Looks like now you've fouled out, Temper? I just saw you throw pure mouthpiece out, This boi tries to blame failure on the referees, Spoken like a man who's hopeless, Oh please! Why dont your whole warrior crew come to Cleveland, But only as refugees, In terms of rappin, I can beat you without these, Yo Curry, can I get you another mouthpiece?
Rap Battle: LeBron v.s Steph Curry

For the record, I don't swear. I feel like it detracts from my message and rhythm. Round 1. When in the course of human events Steph Curry's greatness some fool resents His MVP case I will present While you on the other hand are forced to invent- Lies, as useless as the Treaty of Versailles And ultimately, though you wish to deny that Curry's fly You will be forced by me to comply Curry has handles, Curry has range But you still think LeBum's the best, how strange You must have not watched any Cavalier's games Otherwise you would know how he earns his 'fame' He scores 26 a game with the help of referees When he drive down the lane he step like 'one, two, THREE' But they don't call squat, cuz he whines like a child Compared to his antics, Curry's quite mild In parting, I leave you with this one thought Can NBA referees be bought???
Writers debate

This debate is for any of you book readers, or writers. I felt the need to open this debate in order to expose creativity and entertainment. The point of this debate is for both debaters to write out a short story. The first person will start out the story, with a certain set of characters and a select few settings. In every round the Pro will present a problem in their story. The Con will then continue this same story with the same characters and settings (where rules apply), and fix the problem somewhere in the midst of the story. RULES ----------------- 1. Each story must exceed over 4,000 characters long. 2. There will be two main characters (Dennis, and Victoria in this case). Each writer is allowed to bring up to 2 extra characters in their story. They may not make any more than two. (crowds, and large groups of unknown people are the exception). Each writer may describe the character in whichever way they like, but there is no changing any character personality traits, or appearance. That of the appearance left out by one writer, may be filled to the other writers liking in any way they so choose. 3. There will be two general settings. In this case, it will be (Victoria's house, and the park) Each writer may create only one extra setting. The same rules apply with this as the characters. You may add any details not added by the other writer. 4. All character brought up by the opposing writer MUST be used in in each round by each writer. (exceptions apply with character or setting death). 5. Pro MUST present a problem within their story, and Con MUST present a solution. ---------------- This debate will start in the second round. This debate should be voted on due to creativity, thoughtfulness, spelling and grammar, and conduct. If any of this comes off at all confusing, feel free to comment and ask questions. I look forward to the acceptance of this debate. thankyou. -Philosophical
Socialism is evil

Socialism is a political ideology that has become very popular with the rise of Bernie Sanders in this country. I hear all the arguments against socialism as well its a great idea but won't ever work. That is an argument that I find stupid. I will be arguing that socialism by its very nature is an evil ideology, and has never in its history not destroyed the fabric of the countries it has taken over. Round one. accpetance round 2 and 3; arguments and rebuttals round 3; closing statements