BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In pursuit of immortality

Based on their past records, This could be interesting for me. On suicide: Indeed there are people in life who are suicidal, Who the moment of life 'seems unbearable. However what is that but a human malfunctioning or experiencing error in function? By this let me explain with a question. There is a man for whom you feel friendship for, Whom you would want to go through life correctly and in the best of ways. He comes to you one day asking for a knife "That1User, I have grown weary of life. My house has been burned down by bandits. . . While my family was in it! They have stolen all my crops and goods. My body is burned from the sun and the soles of my feet torn from walking. Will you not give me a knife, That I might end my life? " Would you give him a knife? Possibly you would, I'm banking my arguement that you wouldn't. A person who cared for their friend, My hope would be. That they take care of them, Help their body heal, Find the values in life that still remain to them. Perhaps you will argue that this is entirely selfish, And not what is best for the person. Perhaps you actually think it best they kill themselves. That their death would deny you of your relationship with them. A possible line of thought. But one I think turned away from the truth. That even in miserable circumstance, A person is able to exert their own will. To find or create meaning in life and reason to live. Suicide may be an existence in humanity. But one could hardly call it the action of a human in the prime existence of function and life. There is a reason that it is fought in mental health, In philosophy, And in our hearts. On existence: Even with infinity, A person can still count which misfortune they are currently upon as they count upward. More so, With infinity is chance, Opportunity for change. 1000 flips of a coin may all land upon a losing side for a man. But so long as he has another chance, He has another chance. A chance for life to be improved and with knowledge of the past, Only more skillfully mitigating loss and reaping success. One cannot experience love if one does not exist. One cannot even find meaning, Purpose, Or significance if they do not exist. A person can only 'be, If they exist, While they exist. Only existence can bring meaning to a person. For every connotation that may exist for a person, Can only be, When someone is able to say "I am. " And still that meaning exists more than for he who is a braindead in a hospital, A rock, Or a dog. On survival: When the chips are down, Mans nature shines better. In strife, Struggle, And uncertainty, Do we let bare our teeth. Snarl against indomitable odds and forces to exert our own being. Whether as a community of Britain's in the second war, Upper lips stiff and hearts steeled as shards of iron burst in their cities. Or as an island of boys, Each filled with self love and desperation. Each determined to live themselves before the game is up, And everything is lost, If existence too, Is lost.
should the homework be banned from schools

1) I cleared stated in my conclusion that homework should be banned. i also added on to my conclusion that the US should change their teaching techniques based on what you said in the previous argument. Not only it takes up significant time for the teacher to grade but it also takes up the students time. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very stressful, time consuming, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will take, or set an unrealistic deadline. 2) Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something new well in class which makes the homework assignment impossible. So children end up paying with their free time for the failings of their teachers. The students grade can suffer a great deal based on doing the homework poorly. That makes homework not a effective tool to practice. 3) HOMEWORK SHOULD BE BANNED and teachers should focus on what they teach in class.
should the homework be banned from schools

1) Your argument is inconsistent. You changed your conclusion from banning homework to improving teaching techniques... I also don't agree that grading homework takes up a significant amount of time that causes teachers to be tired and not want to teach with enthusiasm. Even if this was the case, it is a teachers job to grade homework and then teach the next day so that should not matter. 2) Your saying we should improve US educational systems and totally disregard homework but homework is a very beneficial thing. Homework is practice and practice creates perfection. Homework is given to students to do at night, over the weekends, during Holiday breaks and over summer vacations because it stimulates the child's mind. It is given so the child's mind does not get lazy while they are out of school. 3) Homework should not be banned from schools
should the homework be banned from schools

1) So what you're saying is that Japan and Denmark has a better educational system then the United States. Studies show that this is a fact. This shows me that we need to make changes to the way we teach our children. Not giving homework and improving the work load in our schools could be the first step. We might even get the same results as Japan and Denmark if we make these changes. 2) Regardless of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time. This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. This might be the reason Japan is so successful in teaching their youth. 3) Homework should be banned and teachers should focus on what they teach in class.
should the homework be banned from schools

1) Homework is beneficial because it teaches children useful skills at an early age. It teaches kids responsibility. It is a child's responsibility to make sure his/her homework is completed for the next day. It also teaches children time management because students plan when to complete their homework based on their schedule. 2) You can not compare Japan and Denmark to the United States because although they may not get much homework , their work load during school is far more intense than in America, so that makes it even. C) homework should not be banned from schools.
The drinking age is the USA should be lowered to 19

Cool stuff man. It was a good debate. Thanks for debating with me. It's cool that you changed you opinion. I respect that. BOPCool. That makes sense. This instigator always has the burden of proof unless it is specified. Or, the person changing the status quo. What if the instigator is keeping the status quo(is it shared then)? hahaAlso, I don't really yet understand how having, not having or sharing the BOP changes the arguments. If the BOP was shared or my opponent had it, would I have to argue differenly (just random thoughts, this BOP concept is kinda new to me)1. Not allowing 19 year olds to drink is logically inconsistent with other freedoms that are granted to young adults. To reiterate my main point, just because 19 year olds are allowed to do other dangerous things, it does not mean they should be allowed to drink as well. I agree. By no means do I expect you to defend the status quo. Alone, this point does not prove drinking should be legal. But, comparing drinking to other freedoms helps gauge/establish what standard of danger is acceptable for 18 year olds and what standard is not. 2. The Law has been Ineffective at stopping drinking If a law is inneffective to the ectent that 82% of the population breaks it each year, it should be changed(in the case of 19-20yo drinking, it should be removed). The murder example is bad example to compare to underage drinking. The murder law is very effective. Also, murder is highly immoral, whereas drinking is not really immoral. Also, If the murder law had been innefective and 82% of the people commited murder each year, something would have to change. Imagine that, 82-100% of the population would be wiped out each year to killings. An innefective law requires a change. In the case of underage drinking it should be removed. A better example to compare would be speeding, but I awnsered this objection on round 1. 3. The law does not greatly effect drunk driving deathsWhether I am an expert is irrelevent. Sometimes experts have stupid ideas and sometimes fools get a stroke of genius. The idea/argunment makes sense. Yeah, the laws had some effect on drunk driving deaths. But, it makes sense that better technology/safety standards contribute heavily to DDDeaths. My 3rd citation goes deeper into the effects of the drinking age on drunk driving fatalities. Thanks again for the debate man. If there is anyone that thinks the drinking age should be 21, I would be happy to debate.
The drinking age is the USA should be lowered to 19

Yes, you do have the burden of proof because:A) You are the instigator, and you never specified that the burden of proof was sharedB) You are attempting to make a change to the status quo. Pretty reasonable, if you ask me.1. Not allowing 19 year olds to drink is logically inconsistent with other freedoms that are granted to young adults. Once again, this argument was merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I am not going to defend the entire status quo, because this resolution is only about the drinking age. To reiterate my main point, just because 19 year olds are allowed to do other dangerous things, it does not mean they should be allowed to drink as well. To say that other countries throughout the world have lower drinking ages does nothing to help the Pro case. Whether or not a belief is popular has absolutely nothing to do with that belief being right. 2. The Law has been Ineffective at stopping drinkingIn his response, Pro completely missed the point of my attack. I was not claiming that laws against murder are ineffective and thus we should legalize murder. I was simply providing a hypothetical example of how Pro's logic in this contention fails. My point was this: Just because a law is ineffective at accomplishing something, it does not mean we should remove the law. Even if the law has been ineffective at stopping drinking, (which it hasn't as I've already proven) that doesn't warrant removing the law entirely. 3. The law does not greatly effect drunk driving deaths"If the law had a profound effect on overall drunk driving deaths, the drunk driving decrease should have accelerated around 1984,1985. However, it did not, the decrease remained constant. There is a natural rate of decrease. "So I suppose we are to assume that Pro is an expert on the subject, and thus we should take his expert opinion on the interpretation of the statistics. The fact that there was a constant decrease is notable. I'm not saying the drinking age laws were in and of themselves the entire reason why drunk driving deaths have decreased over the years. However, it would be foolish to think that these laws weren't conducive to the decrease. At this point I'm going to have to concede because the evidence in Pro's 3rd citation is pretty hard to get around. Not only that, but Pro has literally changed my opinion on this issue. Perhaps I should stick to Philosophy debates. .. Anyways, good debate.
The drinking age is the USA should be lowered to 19

I will argue that the drinking age in the USA should be lowered from 21 to 19. Con will argue that the drinking age should remain at 21.I hope for a good debate. First round acceptance. Good Luck. 72 hour response times. 4 rounds. Here is a fun quote. "Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whiskey is barely enough." ― Mark Twain
THBT single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American public schools

I am the first speaker as opposition. The resolution, or motion, states that "This house believes that single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American public schools." First, I would like to define necessary terms in order to frame the debate. I would like to define single gender as either being male or female, and single-gender won't encompass people who believe that they are neither one. Classrooms will be defined as the environment in which children can learn the best when going to school. Education will be the teaching of children in all grades. Finally, American public schools will be defined as schools in the U.S. that are free and open to everyone. Now that I framed the debate, let me state my burdens. My burden is to create at least 3 arguments in support of my side. Let's move on my arguments. My first argument is equality. There are children who don't think of themselves as one gender or another. Which class will these kids go to when they are, according to them, neither female or male? We have to respect everyone. By doing so, we cannot force these people to becoming a gender. Instead of assigning a person a gender, why can't we just simply combine both genders so that no one is offended? My second argument is segregation. This idea of separate classrooms supports that idea that their should be a division between the two genders. Instead, there should be a harmony and equality between these two. Proposition is suggesting that we should segregate by gender. What is the difference from few decades ago when Blacks were segregated from Whites? We do not want to repeat our sore history. Dividing males from females will create discrepancy instead of harmony and peace. My third argument is limitation. Single-gender schools do not provide students with enough social interaction and diversity. A mixed gender environment can and will produce better educational benefit. Males and females have different ways of thinking and their strengths are different. By putting these two groups together, students can deepen their thinking. My fourth argument is that single-gender schools put students at a disadvantage for future coed jobs and colleges. Most of the jobs in the world are not single-gender and it won't be. What schools are suppose to do is prepare students for their future. However, with divided gender, male and female won't be able to learn how to work together. We have to merge these two groups and teach both genders how to work with each other. This will help them and ultimately, our economy. Voters, I made 4 arguments. Next time, I will refute what my opponent said and make 1 - 2 arguments of my own, as well as rebuilding. My opponent will now refute my arguments and make 3 - 5 of his own. Thank you and vote for Opposition. Remember, separation does not mean equal!
Justin Bieber should not get deported.

People do get caught using drugs and some are foreign. Justin was offered a plea deal which was -Plead no contest to reckless driving -Attend an alcohol education class. - Attend a 'victim impact panel.' -Install an ignition interlock device for 3 months. If he agrees, they will drop the DUI and resisting arrest charges. I personally agree that this plea deal is way more suitable than getting deported. http://www.tmz.com...
Justin Bieber should not get deported.

Here is the crazy thing about the other people, they don't get caught or they are not foreign. The law is the law. A judge might take his "good works" as evidence toward his character but is it enough? I don't think so. For example lets say John Smith came down from Canada and got drunk, did drugs, was arrested, assaulted an officer, they would be deported. So because Justin is famous he should be treated differently?
Justin Bieber should not get deported.

He can be deported, it's just not fair if he is. Lots of people use drugs and do not get deported. Just because everyone knows him doesn't mean that he should get deported. http://www.people.com... He does help other people but because most media sources focus on negative things about celebrities (not just Justin Bieber.) People don't realize the good things that they do. I'm not saying he cannot get deported, I'm just saying it's not fair.
Justin Bieber should not get deported.

Boy did I feel awkward typing “Justin Bieber” in to google. Presentation Justin Beiber should be and can be deported because he is not a United States Citizen[1]. As my opponent acknowledged Justin Bieber does drugs, and drug crimes are eligible for deportation[2]. Just because Justin is a celebrity does not make him above the law. [1] http://www.wetpaint.com... [2] http://knowyourvisa.com...
There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

My opponent stated; "evolution is right in front of our eyes" - What on earth are you talking about? no one has EVER seen ANYTHING EVER change from one animal into another through mutations. "also visual, physically proven as we speak." - first of all you can't "prove" a scientific theory. - second of all there is NO scientific evidence that actually supports the theory of evolution. - third, evolution is fiercely debated even among secular scientists. evolution is a deception and a false belief system, it requires faith and is not science. note: I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life. I attended secular schools up to and beyond 2nd year college and attended biology and anthropology classes in college. After further study for a number of years after school I became convinced that the theory of evolution is false, not scientific and based on assumptions, deceptions and misinterpretations of data. I believe that God created the earth and the heavens and that they were created "good" or perfect to begin with and have since been steadily decaying (the opposite of evolution). I believe the earth is about 6000 years old but could be as old as 20,000 years. - about 6000 years ago God created everything. -about 4500 years ago there was a catastrophic, world wide flood. I believe that people accept the theory of evolution because they do not take the time to critically examine the so called evidence for themselves. I look forward to our discussion here and hope that some can have an open enough mind to re-examine their assumptions and put aside their biases. Best Regards, Fritz
There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

I would like for my opponent to understand something clearly, when we speak of Evolution we are not talking mini topics; that religion has placed, for science, as an argument. For evolution is right in front of our eyes, also visual, physically proven as we speak. My opponents job as con; is to give us proof of creation. Rules: -one specific rule; if you site a verse from the bible, please also place the name of the bible used, in my opponents arguments, I will do the same, if I result to the bible to counter claim the arguments from my opponent. -Now I understand sources are important in a debate, I shall let my opponent also know, I aceviper2011 will probually not use allot of resources, I'll mainly try to use my knowledge, my views. (lets be clear, my opponent is allow any sources needed, he is not limited, but we both if used sources shall cite sources at the end of each round, or after the paragraph argument, what ever works for my opponent on citing sources. -First round is acceptance and also to be clear if the two rules are understood, I know as the starting of this debate, I'll have to state my argument for my opponent to counter act. For the second round I will began the argument on this topic, now let my opponent know, the way to prove creation is, proving the existing of this god he uses. (in reality we both have two topics on this matter; I suggest we both for strategic reason to do as they please with there debate). Closure 1st round note:I want to thank my opponent again, I hope he uses the first round as acceptance so I can place an argument on my second round for his counter act. I hope my opponent enjoys this debate.
There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

My opponent has forfeit, My opponent stated I did not use a proper definition, I have used the definiton of Evolution, my opponent seen it was true, thats why he couldnt refute my arguments. Evolution does mean what I posted, from the dictionary. Arguments all extend. The reason why my opponent said this debate was not worth his time, because he knew I was telling the truth, that I have met the burdon of proof.
There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

My opponent stated in his first premise that the biology definition of evolution is: "1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." He goes on to state: "I want my opponent to keep that definition in mind, thats the biology definition" This is patently false. according to my opponents own source the biology definition is: "Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.reference.com... Thus my opponent is wrong about the biology definition of evolution and is defending an irrelevant definition. I should win this debate based on this alone as this is known as "bate and switch" Further more, my opponent has not dealt with any of my arguments but merely dismissed them out of hand. This is an easy vote for con. Any votes for pro merely demonstrate a biased voter who fails to actually read the material.
Who is the greatest Batman villian.

With my opponent didn't give me anything to rebuttal, but I would say that if he picked the Joker like he said he would the reason I feel that Two-Face is the greatest Batman villain because there is emotion between Batman and Two-Face. They were friends as Harvey and Bruce,but now they are the enemies. When Batman fights the Joker there is no real emotion. Two-Face is Batman's friend in the past now the enemy of the future.
Who is the greatest Batman villian.

The greatest Batman villain is Two-Face. I will be giving reasons why from the comics, animated series, and the movie The Dark Knight. I will not be using the Two-Face from the movie Batman Forever because if I did I would change my villain from Two-Face to Joel Schumacher. First the biggest reason why Two-Face is the greatest Batman villain is the fact he was a good and moral person before his accident. He was formally known as Harvey Dent a man of great character and trying to save Gotham through the courts. Harvey was doing such good to the city that Batman was willing to leave it all and let Harvey Dent take his place. He worked with Batman to try to save the world of Gotham and in doing so being a part of Batman. When Harvey had his accident when half of his face was destroyed he turned from the moral character he once stood for into the person no one wants to be. He is a tragic story unlike the Joker that he is just a madman doing horrible things. People can relate to Two-Face and feel sympathy for. Whenever Batman has to fight him it is like fighting a good friend that he once had. The reason Two-Face is such a great villain is that he is a tragic hero that turns to crime and hate.
Medical Marijuana

Although marijuana poses some danger, so do most other drugs prescribed by doctors. It is a powerful drug, but the dangers associated with it are the same associated with smoking cigarettes. Also, many patients only would need medicinal marijuana for a short amount of time, and therefore would not receive many negative smoking effects. The harms of this drug are within the range tolerated for other medications. Cannabis is one of humanity's oldest medicines;China used it in medicinal tea, and for thousands of years people have used this drug without knowing any negative effects. With this being said, the positive effects of marijuana outweigh the slight risks.