BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IQ numbers are meaningless.

The definition of "meaningless" shall be: without meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeless; insignificant [1]. I want everyone to especially notice the reference to the part where something "meaningless" is referred to as having no purpose or value. With this in mind, all I have to do in order to win the debate is to illustrate IQ tests having at least one purpose or value. If I can do that, I've won. This debate is not about if IQ tests could be improved, and it's not about if there are other ways to determine one's value to society. The resolution is whether nor not IQ tests and their numbers are meaningless. Here is some purposes for IQ tests [2]; Identification of Strengths An intelligence test can help someone identify their academic strengths. A person may discover a previous unknown verbal fluency, or become more aware of numeric abilities or spatial perception understanding. Understanding your strengths can help you prepare for a career that utilizes your innate abilities. Identification of Weaknesses The result of an IQ test can also help you identify areas where you may have academic or cognitive deficits. This can inspire you to work harder in those areas to shore up your skills. Knowing that you are not innately good at a certain specific subject can also help you decide to avoid a career in that field because you may not enjoy it. School Placement Administrators can use IQ tests to help with academic placement. Students who are gifted in language acquisition may be placed in classes with other quick readers. Such placement can help them avoid boredom and provide them with additional motivation for remaining in school. Help Disabled Students Students who are found to have specific cognitive deficits as a result of intelligence testing can get the help they need to succeed in school. Educators can design a course of study that helps students who may struggle with reading, math skills or spatial perception awareness learn better. School officials may decide to decrease class size and provide struggling students with extra time from teachers and access to teacher's aides during the day. This can ultimately help them catch up to their peers academically. Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.ehow.com...
Should backpacks be allowed in school

backpacks should not be banned from school because of these three topics 1. time management: when you are carrying all of your important papers in one binder you could lose the binder, drop your binder { and then your papers would be destroyed because everyone would step on them and tear them into small pieces } 2 organization: with a binder you have a very limited storage space and when you need to turn your papers in you could have misplaced them and that equals decreasing grades. 3. health / physical disabilities: when you are in a sport of any physical level you always have a chance to break a bone and when you are in school with a broken arm or leg maybe even both, you need to carry your belongings and when you need to operate your wheelchair or crutches you always use both arms or legs so where do you put your stuff... on top of your head? no, you need a backpack. we shouldn't be failing because of their rule so give our backpack back. And yes backpacks do pose threats but very small threats and those can be controlled just by raising the security level, problem solved
Should backpacks be allowed in school

I just like to say that I didn't see that you we're for backpacks being allowed. I apologize for that. However, I think I can say some stuff on this topic. (First topic) You talk about a con of carrying a binder instead of a backpack, despite the topic being called "time management". The example/scenario you brought up is more of "what happens when you have an unorganized backpack" rather than "time management". "Time management" would fit with (say) having too many papers and books to keep up with. With backpacks, the organization would be worse because that's the thing you're carrying your stuff in. This includes books, papers, notebooks, writing utensils, etc. If the student can't fit all of that in a binder or two, that is their problem. (Second topic) Simple solution: multiple binders. (Third topic) Just because a person has a broken bone, that doesn't excuse their performance in school, and their responsibilities in school. However, I can agree with you on those with a broken bone need backpacks to carry their belongings, but wouldn't a regular bag do the same thing. Finally, you make it sound like someone can snap their fingers and whatever they want appears. Saying "raise the security level" is easier said than done. The ball's in your court.
This debate is total Nosensicality

Dis is strange, me th!nk so. I w4nt out one day, you now Spagh4tti is good for u, makes brain grow5 b!9 and H4iry! h3llo, i like fish, fish, fish, fish is strange, buh d0n't running in b0at to verys quickly, cus you do felled over quicky, maybeas yous wride dofins not make walking from school from nows ons.Make sure u cookie kat down volcanooh so propper cooked no doing crip citty make kats chewsie In conclusion, 4informin u bunnies make dahh gooodest cars, duh! Yyes , 1 takken I meds 2d4y5 p?3;;2;A3; sC0;;6;;2;q &7;uıA3;ou /7;@7;ı?3; ıMe be dooing g0od g000d giberish + b!gwords, Uous makie badd grammmer s!nce nudiusterian, yous kakorrhaphophibic impignorate 4 endding gabelle, + lokking quite eraceous twoevenening. Wuv u!! my go now
This debate is total Nosensicality

STOP! DIS IS A NOT 'ZONE!Me takie forfeit as mai confusing so much with gramer bad-bad! I just making weird sentances now :pens are scarry. Then dah purpley mushrom get of dah boat and stated grating turkey-candels cos he surfing on a spontaiously-conbusting pigeon, den dah moon did felling over cos he lazy. After I put my doodle-sack in the microwave and turned dah oven to 180 first-degrees and cookied mai no pirate sign(looked like dis#). It tasted like a winklepicker, me givie to my picture-frame too eat.To Be ConCluding: cardbard doesn't make a good pet for rocks
This debate is total Nosensicality

Vel, mai contar argummenting:WIZZARDS manez beas uglesly, >ova toofeey making better hatsNevar lisen 2 people ulotrichous face likea mousedoor, cus they needing go w in A Ny! vpfv zone this is a verry strange circle c ,buh it tasting verry verry awith, i canjtwo dah moon, can you dancing on sky?eat my !face
Debate.org should change some of the criteria for how a person wins the debate

Thank you for accepting. Who did you agree with before the debate? Who did you agree with after the debate? Who had better conduct? Who had better spelling and grammar? Who made more convincing arguments? Who used the most reliable sources? These are the current criteria to define who has "won" the debate.I argue that some this criteria should be change for the following reasons:Criteria that should be changed #1. Who has better spelling and grammar? (1 point)Reason it should be changed: Spelling and grammar is important, but it should not decide the outcome of a debate (which is how it can currently).A great example is this: Let's say a fierce debate is happening to decide that "gun control should be in effect".The proponent, who agrees in gun control, great evidence, great sources, and every sentence is grammatically correct. The opponent, who disagrees with gun control also offers great evidence, great sources, except he makes one grammatical mistake - forgetting to put a period at the end of one of his sentences. This declares the proponent the winner of the debate if all else is held contant by the current criteria - which gives 1 point for spelling and grammar. This is a dubious reason to ever "win" the debate just because of that. This is purely technical - he should technically win.I would argue that the criteria should be more like: Were there numerous grammatical/spelling mistakes that detracted from the argument?". That would be much more relevant in deciding a winner.Criteria that should be changed #2. Who used the most reliable sources? (2 points)Reason it should be changed:"reliable" is a hard to define. Reliablity by bias, date of source, relevancy to the argument? It does not specify. One could argue that "Fox News" is a reliable news source or that "NBC news" is a reliable news source. There is not denying the slants of bias through different sources. Often times, the winner becomes a game of who uses the most sources in the debate wins. These are valuable points in deciding who wins a debate?I would argue that the "reliable sources" criteria should specify more clearly what is relevant in the voting option.
God is cruel.

Evil arises not from God but from the actions of his creations who create their own actions independent of God. God is The Judge, The Justice, The Just and a host of other Powerful and Most Powerful Attributes.It is unjust to create the free creature and prevent that creature from having the choice of good or evil.Where there is good there is evil and where there are good and evil the are reward and punishment.God does not discriminate and God gives man and woman the freedom to earn reward or punishment. Nobody saves you but your own deeds decide your salvation or the Hellfire.
God is cruel.

I completely disagree. If God was 100% good, evil would not even exist. It is a logical fallacy to say that God is 100% good and then to say that He allows evil. I only obey Him to avoid Hell. I get no joy out of obeying a cruel God. I refer you to the following quote: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
God is cruel.

One can question one's religion and God in order to find truth. You should read over the holy books. You should ask both religious people and non religious people. You should ask friends for advice. In that context I was referring to what he creates and does. Because God has already created and done many things. It is not our business on what he choices. For example it is not of our concern to ask when Judgement day is cause only he knows. I would like to say that I love God. He is Just and Kind and Merciful. I believe in him and I always will. You may see him as cruel cause possibly you might not have had a good relationship with Religion. I find myself in love with my religion. I will always be religious and put my faith in God. My beliefs are different to yours. I'm not sure what your religion is but I would like to say God is not Cruel and the evidence is that he can choose to kill us all in a second but chooses not to. He has immense power and can do many things and as long as we believe in him and put our faith in him everything will be alright. Nice meeting you and Thanks for the Debate.
God is cruel.

This is how evil began. God created Adam and he showed it to his angels. In that same room there was a jinn by the name of Iblees. God told the angels and the jinns to bow down to adam. All the angels bowed down and all the jinns bowed down except Iblees. God asked him why and the reply was "I am better than him [Adam], You created me from fire, and him You created from clay." Because of this rebellion against God he was cast out of the heavens and cursed by God. This creature has been expelled from the Mercy of God and he seeks to lead mankind astray and with him to Hellfire. He is thus, mankind's greatest enemy. He is the Devil. The effects of fighting against the devil and his supporters leads to the perfection of worship. The Prophets and followers of God perfect their servitude to God by struggling against the devil and opposing his supporters. They also perfect their faith by seeking refuge in God from the devil and fleeing to Allah in order to seek refuge from the devil's evil. This leads to reaching lofty positions of worship that would not have been reached without the devil's existence. Satan is a trial and test for God's followers. Before Satan there was only Good but Satan used his free will and used it to create evil. Satan teaches to reject God and to commit sins. Satan will be punished just like us and he knows that he will be punished. He wants to bring as much people with him to hell as possible. Satan does not like hell and he does not control it but God created Hell to punish both Satan and his followers. It was because of Satan evil started and God created Hell. In the Begging humans were perfect in terms of good or evil till Satan tempted them to eat from the forbidden tree. From then on he has continued to trick humans into rejecting God.
Is it the moral duty of those wi the capability and moral ideals to act in a international situation

PRO has set for himself a rather lofty burden: to prove "that anybody who is a position of power not merely government organisations and has what would be deemed good moral judgement on a situation should act, in a materially selfless manner to prevent any amoral acts." He further clarifies this to say that, not only should they be obligated to act, but that they should be faulted for failing to act (such as in his example of Libya). I find this to be a hard philosophy to support, one to which I have numerous objections. 1st, there is no reason to prevent amoral acts as amoral acts are neither moral nor immoral. [1] 2nd, I am incredulous as to which philosophy it is that my opponent subscribes to that counsels him to hold agents accountable for that which they are wholly uninvolved in. Seeing as the powerfully-positioned persons in question presumably have no relevant connection to the conflict in which PRO prompts them to intervene, it seems impossible to me to see from whence the obligation arrises. Whether or not the US, for example, can involve itself in other nations' affairs is an entirely separate question of whether it is obligated to. If we played no part in the fiasco, we have no duty to resolve it. 3rd, getting involved is not always the best idea. In the context of military intervention, acting indiscriminately on multiple conflicts leads to an overstretched military, a huge military budget, and a high number of casualties. It can also be counter-productive by simply providing an increased motive to continue fighting. In the context of the sanctions being debated for Libya, they, too, can have a few negative effects. First, they can induce a rally-around-the-flag effect in citizens who don't like seeing their economy targeted by foreign governments. Second, leaders in power can compensate for any reduction in government income by shifting the economic burden onto the citizens, so sanctions fail to affect the government and just further harm resistance efforts. I could go on, but I don't think I need to. The point proven here is that it's not always a good thing to intervene, and it certainly isn't obligatory. [1] http://www.yourdictionary.com...
Is it the moral duty of those wi the capability and moral ideals to act in a international situation

I want to argue that anybody who is a position of power not merely government organisations and has what would be deemed good moral judgement on a situation should act, in a materially selfless manner to prevent any amoral acts. My proposed example of this is the current problems that have arisen in Libya. I propose that the fault for the current situation should not be blamed merely on the influence of Colonel Gadaffi but also on the inaction of other global powers that have left the situation deteriorate and taken largely no action, due to the political and material implications of attacking an oil governing regime. Although this situations is extreme i propose that as a race each person has the group to act for the greater good in a situation given a moral duty.
Donald Trump

I do not really understand what you meant with acceptance but I will assume that you want me to explain why i accept him. Or just accepting the debate. Well I will answer both and you do the rest. Let's begin: Yes i do accept the debate and i am willing to debate this question with you. Good luck! Why do I accept Donald Trump? Well because he isn't doing anything wrong. Believe it or not, what he is saying is the absolute truth. He can't keep his words in his mouth. What is a politician, someone that lies, that says stuff the public wants to hear and they smoothen out the corners. Trump doesn't do that. He is clear and said what he wanted to say. Any politician would be the same if they would say what they thinked of. Okay maybe he does say negative and bad sexist things and I do not agree with this. But for the rest, I do accept Mr. Trump.
Conversion Therapy

Conversion Therapy, or electroshock therapy, is a very controversial therapy still legal in the United States. The objective of Conversion Therapy is to "convert" a homosexual person to heterosexuality.Pro will argue that conversion therapy is a positive practice, while I, con, will argue that conversion therapy is a negative, harmful practice. Rounds:R1: AcceptanceR2: Main ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals/Conclusion
Not all Screamo is satanic

I apologize, it seems I have confused my opponent.http://www.youtube.com...My position is that no screamo band is Satanic. This contrasts your position that some screamo bands are"Some of it probably is, but there are christian screamo bands".I will now add an argument, so that my opponent has something to reply to in the final debate round.I feel confident to say no screamo bands are Satanic, as for these bands to be Satanic they have to be devil, or Satan, worshippers. As such my opponent needs to prove these bands are firstly devil worshippers. Secondly and more importantly my opponent needs to prove the existence of Satan.Only if my opponent can prove these two points above is it possible to win this debate.I hand the debate back to my opponent.
Not all Screamo is satanic

I decided to add a youtube video for you to listen to while you read. . http://www.youtube.com...In this debate my position will be that every Screamo bad is definitely not Satanic. Let me also add these definitions for the readers:Satanic: of, relating to, or worshipping the Devil (1)Devil: the most powerful spirit of evil in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam who is often represented as the ruler of hell (2)Additionally, Screamo can be any band my opponent wants to argue for that could possibly be Satanic. I hand the debate over to my opponent for opening arguments. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Not all Screamo is satanic

. http://www.youtube.com...My opponent says it is not necessary to prove Satan exists for someone to worship said person or god. On the contrary I would say its highly important to prove something is real to worship it. If some one worships aliens, we would consider them delusional as the general consensus of the public is that aliens do not exist. The following point about LeVeyan Satanism while interesting is irrelevant as LeVeyanism Satanism is just a form of atheism. (1) Atheism is the position that there is no evidence for a God or hence Satan. I believe that I have made a case that all screamo bands are in fact not Satanic. Additionally, my opponent has not met the burden of proof in this debate. Thanks to my opponent for the debate and now over to the voters. (1) . http://altreligion.about.com...
Not all Screamo is satanic

I'm very impressed with your argument, although there are many satanic "Screamo" songs. I don't have to prove that the devil is real to prove that people worship him. A Kingdom at War - Aye, I am a LaVeyan Satanist. Varg Vikernes (AKA Burzum) was a Pagan. Not a Satanist. He killed Euronymous, who was widely known as a Satanist, and Vikernes himself was known to be anti-Satanist.
Liberals are destroying colleges with their cult

2., 3., and 5. Why is the person President if he doesn't follow the beliefs of the college. Form: A is B B are against C A supports C Here is the analogy: He is a certain sector of Republicans The certain sector of Republicans are against allowing illegal immigrants to stay He supports allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Each premise contradicts the others. No matter what, one premise is false, or the statement is fallacious. Note: In this case, B refers to the liberal form of the college, not all liberals. So it would be like the certain sector of the Liberals. 4. The act of not attending counts as a protest, since they are protesting by not going to a required place. Also, I do not know too much about football, but in the sports I play, you are not required to go to a game, just tell them beforehand. 6. First off, the argument of a conservative is one that is both fallacious and not very liked, which is why there are a low number of them. Second off, your evidence only supports Liberal to Conservative and Democratic to Republic, but I do not see anything about Liberal to everything else. By the way, the numbers reference the number answer you say, not the number I put them as.
Liberals are destroying colleges with their cult

Let me first start by arguing the common misconception. You say liberals in the title, so you are not addressing liberal colleges specifically, so it has to be assumed you mean liberals in general.Yes, Liberals instigated the movement, and Liberal professors instigated the movement, and without due process of the law.Second, When you say the faculty encouraged the actions, who are they protesting against? Actions of the President that they felt were "systematic racism".If they are part of a college that is all liberal that supports liberal movements, how are they opposing the college? They weren't. They were opposing the President.Which leads me to wonder why they even had the protest take place during an expensive event anyways? They didn't protest during an expensive event. They threatened to not attend the football game that they were supposed to play in.This also leads me to wonder how they pushed out the president if he encouraged some of their actions.He didn't encourage their actions. They threatened to not play in football games if he didn't resign or get fired.Third, you say you are proving what position most liberals take, but your evidence has a small sample that is not large enough? Can you cite any more polls to strengthen that argument?https://www.politico.com...http://news.gallup.com...https://www.cato.org...https://www.washingtonpost.com...peech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.345fc23aba29http://www.bbc.com...https://www.nytimes.com...Fourth, you say liberal professors outnumber conservative professors, but what about republican, democratic, green, and other parties in between?Liberal professors are 12/13 of the faculty population regardless of what the other 1/13 is.
Liberals are destroying colleges with their cult

Let me first start by arguing the common misconception. You say liberals in the title, so you are not addressing liberal colleges specifically, so it has to be assumed you mean liberals in general. Second, When you say the faculty encouraged the actions, who are they protesting against? If they are part of a college that is all liberal that supports liberal movements, how are they opposing the college? Surely the entire college is in on it. Which leads me to wonder why they even had the protest take place during an expensive event anyways? Couldn't they just protest in public? This also leads me to wonder how they pushed out the president if he encouraged some of their actions. Third, you say you are proving what position most liberals take, but your evidence has a small sample that is not large enough? Can you cite any more polls to strengthen that argument? Fourth, you say liberal professors outnumber conservative professors, but what about republican, democratic, green, and other parties in between?