BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Balance, Brexit is Bad for the U.K

As Pro, I will be arguing that (on balance) the British vote to leave the European Union--otherwise known as 'Brexit'--will have decidedly more negative implications for the nation than positive. My opponent will naturally have to argue that this isn't the case and negate the resolution. Debate Structure: -Round one is reserved for acceptance. -Round two will be opening arguments. -Round three will be rebuttals. -Round four will be additional rebuttals, defence of arguments and closing statements. -Character Limit is 10,000 per round. -I will be selecting an opponent, so unless you're 100 years old with an outrageously huge number of completed debates: you can't accept automatically, and if you do it will result in an immediate forfeit for you. The only other requirement for this debate is that my opponent have reasonable knowledge of the topic; in that they know what the European Union (E.U) is, and have an idea of what the stated Pros and Cons of the U.K leaving the European Union are. Comment if interested.
Mental Health System

I do not in any way support bullying, perversity, the taking of ones freedom, bigotry, false systems, impossible/immature doctrines, flamers, stupidity, ignorance from academicians, forced examinations based on flimsy if not bogus evidence, police intervention in the instance you were talking about, inciting depression. I'm autistic. Not a big fan of society either. I have reduced social engagement. I'm not well known for thinking first. I'd say I have reduced "positive" emotional expression, but enhanced "negative" emotional expression. I've been bullied, but I deserved some of it. The "regular" (can't think of a better term) health system isn't rainbows and unicorns either. Going from the Mental Health System to the "regular" one would be like jumping out of the fire and into the frying pan.
DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Definitions: Ought - used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Guarantee - a formal promise or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality and durability Health Care - the maintenance and improvement of physical and mental health, especially through the provision of medical services. Universal Healthcare - a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. As agreed upon, my opponent may go first.
God is Great.

You give me a lot of fluff on the possibility of the existence of god. I say that god is possible, but highly unlikely. If there were a god, he would be made to answer for so many crimes. He allowed more than six million Jews to die. Why? (etc...) Ok, if Jesus died for our sins take into account this: EVOLUTION. Evolution is scientific fact. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity or electricity. Evolution shows that there was no adam and eve in the garden story, and therefore discredits original sin, which leads to the notion that Jesus died for what exactly? I'm glad I don't have a boss who gives me the freedom to do something, but when I mess it up kill me. That is the god you worship. You worship a god who resorts to genocide when humans were 'bad' in his eyes. As for the ten commandments. It's a pretty lousy list. Really, the first few are about how jealous god is. Really? A perfect being, but oh dear he is jealous? The only things on that list that are actual laws are murder and steal. The bible is cherry picked from. You choose what you want from the bible and leave out the 'bad' parts like killing homosexuals, or disobedient children. The bible is filled with grotesque stories. One of my favorite is Lot offering his daughters up to a mob to be raped. Or perhaps the one where a few kids make fun of a bald man and in return god sends bears after them to tear them apart. Such good morality there. More than the lack of evidence for a god (oh the bible says it, and the people in the bible say so), I am glad there isn't a god, because he sounds utterly ruthless. I would never want to be a slave in HIS (not hers, by the way) eternal north korea. Thank you for engaging in the debate. I urge you strongly to watch this:
Our education system is fundamentally conradictory

So, our education system is backwards. Kids are motivated by grades, which detracts them from challenge and learning. The small number of kids who realize this, have to go to even greater lengths to overcome the disadvantage that the system puts them at. This inherently proves that our education system works against its very goal. In order for kids to learn optimally, they must risk being overcome by the consequences of the grading system and its impact on their future.
Our education system is fundamentally conradictory

To elaborate, I think it is obvious that the present educational system rewards rudementary work and is focused on the bottom student and keeping everyone at par. While some kids may see the benefits of knowledge and challenge, most kids do not. The kids that do are obviously overcoming the disadvantage that the system puts them in by not playing the standards game and valuing things that, to their specific knowledge, will give them a different, and in my opinion better, reward. Whether or not kids should motivate themselves or challenge themselves is not relfective of the system. In order to inspire or challenge themselves, kids not only have to have the natural desire to, but the courage to fly in the face of the educational system as well. The system not only doesn't help, it makes the things that should be sought after, harder to accomplish.
Our education system is fundamentally conradictory

Maybe my last paragraph distorted my claim. I'll address it first. Even in AP programs, the slowest student is rewarded with the most attention. The system doesn't give a thought to harnessing the most gifted minds and expnading them to their potential, they are merely concerned with keeping everyone at even par. Counselors advise what a student needs to graduate and future possibilities. This is true. Students also pick their futures. But, this doesn't change the fact that the future classes that the student picks are going to be beneficial if they are rudementary. It is more practically rewarding for a student to take principle elements of science and cruise to an A, rather than take molecular biology, learn a lot, and take a C. This is the fundamental flaw I was pointing out. More advanced curricula teach you more, but are not chosen because they do not ensure practical rewards (good grades). I think you miss my claim, and I'm sorry for any part I played in that.
Our education system is fundamentally conradictory

The way our current education system is set up, kids, from jr high through college, are detracted from actually seeking knowledge and learning in order to acquire good marks. This has nothing to do with standards or teachers. At a very fundamental level, students are rewarded for not challenging themselves and receive great award for mastering basic curriculum rather than struggling with more complex systems. Additionally, honors students are at a fundamental disadvantage. Classes are slowed down for the slowest student, inherently hindering the ability of smarter kids to advance. I will elaborate upon request, but really needed a decent topic, as I am really bored.
People should donate their organs after their death!

So, you missed your turn! Ok. Let"s continue! Think, after death people"s organs become useless for them, but if they do donation, their organs can be very need for somebody who still has a chance to survive. It is like you pay for your sins acting in this life. Anyway we are all sinners! By becoming donor we can give opportunities to live not only one person even more. According to Wickman, one donor can save 50 people - http://www.healthguidance.org.... Moreover, statistics show that around the world 90 000 people are waiting organ donors and every month nearly 20 people are dying do not waiting them. Imagine, if everyone after death had donated at least one organ: kidney, heart or liver, how much people they would have saved! Because there also a lot of children who want to live, who else did not see the whole life properly! "As many as half of the approximately 1,500 children waiting for organ transplants each year die before donors can be found". - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... So people should think about being organ donors after death since now!
People should donate their organs after their death!

Yes it is possible but in a little extend. Do you have any examples? According to Trisha Torrey, "The decisions about who will get those healthy organs and tissue need to be fair and objective. In the United States, organs cannot legally be bought or sold, and decisions about who will be granted the newly harvested organs are made based on level of need". I understood that not all people can buy organs. Doctors give them only to people who in desperate need, who are on the verge of death. So don"t you think that, for instance, rapist who was close to death, can change his views to the life. It is possible as well! Then you didn"t answer to my question "So what do you think about another halves of people who have a religion, but do not believe in the existence of spirits? Or Atheists and so on?" And I would like to add something about religion: "Most major religions are supportive of organ donation, although if you are concerned, you can contact a religious authority in your area"" " follow here for getting full information - http://www.wisegeek.com...#
People should donate their organs after their death!

"If I already decided to donate my organs after death, I must go to the centre of denotation in my country and of course fill an agreement stating that my some organs must be transplanted to the person who really needs in them. And I think my family or relatives can control it and care about it."I have the same answere to that as before. The simple answer is we live in a corrupt society where even doctors cannot be trusted. Peoples organs would be sold to who ever paid the most. When I die, I want to know that if were to donate any of my organs, that they would be SECURELY delivered to someone who truely needs them, not a "dick cheney".Also, the idea of my heart and liver and whatever else being inside of someone else creeps me out. What if one of those people is a rapist or something!! Think about that.
People should donate their organs after their death!

I see, you mean under "Many people strongly refuse but"" refuse because of their religion, because of their beliefs. Ok I suppose agree with you! But about religion it is another debate! For instance, I do not believe that spirit of the person from which I received can haunt me. So what do you think about another halves of people who have a religion, but do not believe in the existence of spirits? Or Atheists and so on? What kind of reasons they have by not becoming a donor? Also you said "Some cultures or religions do not believe in the transfer of bodily tissue or fluilds". But I found one article http://patients.about.com... - where I read that many organs of people can transplanted. Even skin, stem cells etc. And about your second argument: If I already decided to donate my organs after death, I must go to the centre of denotation in my country and of course fill an agreement stating that my some organs must be transplanted to the person who really needs in them. And I think my family or relatives can control it and care about it.
People should donate their organs after their death!

"Many people strongly refuse but some halves of them are hard to come to such decision."Some cultures or religions do not believe in the transfer of bodily tissue or fluilds. Johovas witness does not allow people to have blood transfusions. Also, some Native Americans believe that the spirit of the person from which they have a recieved a organ from will haunt them. A lot of the people that I know that declined the oportunity to donate did so for religious or cultural reasons. "You can be confident that you made a noble cause and be sure that you will save someone." The simple answer is we live in a corrupt society where even doctors cannot be trusted. Peoples organs would be sold to who ever paid the most. When I die, I want to know that if were to donate any of my organs, that they would be SECURELY delivered to someone who truely needs them, not a "dick cheney".
People should donate their organs after their death!

To donate organs in order to save somebody"s life after your death, of course it is not easy decision. Many people strongly refuse but some halves of them are hard to come to such decision. I would like to say something for people who agree to be a donor. You can be confident that you made a noble cause and be sure that you will save someone. I think it is something bigger to feel that after your death part of your soul or body will live further. Think, what for your organs need after your death. In addition, during 48 hours one person dies waiting for organ donation. So, in my opinion people should donate their organs after their death.
New England Patriots SUCK and are cheaters

If this really didn't make me mad I wopuldn't of even looked at this but I'm tired of this spygate S***. I am a Philadelphia Eagles fan. a couple of weeks ago I saw how good the Patriots really were.(When N.E. played Philly.) Up until then I was on I-M-Rights side. I despised the Patriots b/c I believed they cheatedto win in all there Super Bowls (especially the one Philly and N.E. played in.) But on the night these 2 teams played I saw how good the Pats really were with out cheating. This night I saw the first throw of our back up AJ Feeley (Who i think played beter than McNabb ever would of) got picked and brought back. Then Philly answered w/ a Brian Westbrook TD. The Pats returned with another TD. In the second half Feeley and Greg Lewis hook up for TD... Pats return w/ field goal. Phila scores again...PATS RETURN W/ ANOTHER TD. Eagles score again in the 3rd. In the fourth the Pats returnm AGAIN. Then when the Eagles drive in the fourth TWICE its picked off. My point is...an Eagles team that has not played up to its potential all year gave the Pats LITERALLY everything they had...and lost. The Ravens gave them everything they had and lost. The Patriots are honest to god the best team we will ever see. They blow teams out. They grind out wins in the trenches. They DON't SUCK. No matter how many haters say they do (I was ONCE one) say they do you can't deny there good.
PS3 will stay in third in the console war.

Think about this for a second. Gran turismo 3 sold 14 million copies and gran turismo 4 sold over 8 million. This one game already has a large enough fan support to boost the sales of the ps3 past the 360. Hell the ps3 is already out selling the 360 by about 5000 units world wide. that margin will only increase as the block buster hits start to come out for the ps3.Also the PS3 comes with a free online service, free wireless, includes blueray technology and lets not forget its playstation. Plastation has been the dominant system for over 10 years since the release of the original playstation and it's fanbase is still large. once the PS2 is off the market people will upgrade most likely to the ps3. Lets also not forget the flaws of the 360. It has a 33% failiure rate. Also its loud and comes with a huge power brick that takes up alot of space. Xbox live also is 50 dollars a year as well as the stupid points system to buy games which makes it so people are unable to pay with correct change for online content. Right now the PS3 is outpacing the 360 with crappy ports, less extencive library and higher price tag. You do the math, what do you think will happen when its best games come out for it, like it did for the 360 this year.
PS3 will stay in third in the console war.

That is the weakness. The PS3 was released a year later. The PS3 came out with Resistance while 360 owners were swimming with Gears of War. This year Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted came out yet their sales were so poor that even the producer of Uncharted went as far as saying "I wish we hadn't shown the game so early." Sony showed it for the past 2 E3s because they had nothing else. As far as next year goes, the PS3 will increase in sales but will not dominate. MGS4 does excelent in Japn, but in North America, it doesn't do all that well. People are still going to be buying Wiis for Mario Kart and Super Smash Brother Brawl and 360 owners will be enjoying the BETTER version of GTAIV, since its another port to the PS3, and will still be playing Halo 3. Hell, people played Halo 2 until Halo 3 came out. There is no doubt that MGS and Killzone will be excelent games, but the mainstream will still look at the 400 dollar price tag of the PS3 that doesn't play PS2 games, while they can get thw Wii for $250 and the 360 at $350. Ninja Gaiden 2 is not the only game coming to the 360 next year, and I am pretty sure that Microsoft have some games under wraps that they are not showing. Microsft had a head start, they are not going to let Sony surpass them and not do anything about it.
PS3 will stay in third in the console war.

Are u not in the right mind? Sure the 360 has a 2-1 lead reight now but think about the situation in which the ps3 has sold this many units. The PS3 came out a full year later than the 360. So even with the competion from the ps3 and Wii the PS3 was able to sell the same amount in the same time period. Also the sale of PS3 are increasing world wide. The PS3 consistantly sells more units than the 360 in europe after its price drop to 400 dollars and the 360 sells 5000 units in japan a month compared to the ps3 which sells 15000 and up to 40000 when the price drop happened. At theis rate the xbox 360's only hope is its sales in america. but the popularity in america has maxed out with the release of Halo 3. The PS3 has yet to release it's big block buster hits like MGS4, God of War 3, and Gran Turismo 5. These games are all multi million sallers and will move large amounts of ps3's. The xbox 360 only has one big release in 2008 and that would be ninja gaiden 2 which is a niche title. Therefore the ps3 will eventually beat the 360 in terms of sales. As for catching the wii, i personally dont think so but it's possible if the wii doesnt have games like mario in 2008.
PS3 will stay in third in the console war.

I think the PS3 is secured in third, the 360 is secured in second, and the Wii will stay at number one. There has been 2 price cuts, 2 new SKUs, yet the sales don't even top what the Gamecube did in the November a year after its release. I own a PS3 and I hope to see good games that make my HDTV and PS3 a worthy purchase, but third party developers are still sucking at porting and its costing Sony, as the Orange Box and Madden showed. Rock Band sucks on the PS3, yet it was supposed to be one of the must have's for this holiday. I don't think Killzone, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Little Big Planet are going to make a huge difference.
PS3 will stay in third in the console war.

Lets think about this for a minute. The PS3 has already sold 7-8 million units with 1. A higher price tag 2. No Final Fantasy, God of War, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Jak and Daxter, most of their best sellers which made this system the best last generation. 3. It has been out only 1 year compared to the 2 year span of the 360 4. It comes with A Blue Ray player packed in, by the way a normal blue ray ply is priced around 400 dollars. 5. It sells way better in japan and Europe than 360. 6. Its reliable, compared to the 360 7. The 360 will not get Halo 4
PS3 will stay in third in the console war.

It doesn't matter what Gran Turismo did last console war, what matters is this war. Sony was on top with the PS1 and PS2, but that doesn't mean they can't lose their position with the PS3. If you want to talk statisics, Halo 3 made 170 million in its first 24 hours in the U.S., and 300 million in the first week. Microsoft realized that it was a waste of time to compete in Japan since they will lose to both Nintendo and Sony over there, so it was logical for them to pull their marketing from Japan and take it to places where the have a chance, like Europe, and they did that. The PS3 is selling to the hardcore PS2 owners, while the casual PS2 owners (the reason PS2 won last generation) are switching to the 360, and maily the Wii. MGS is an awesome game, but no way in hell would it beat the Halo sales. So, the Wii stays on top because of the mainstream, but what puts the 360 ahead of the PS3 is the fact that Microsoft is competing with Sony, Microsoft even said it themselves, they want to beat Sony, and since no one is going against Nintendo, it will stay on top.
Israeli-Style Behavioral Profiling in Airports is Superior to the American Tech-Based System

I accept your challenge. For the sake of clarity to those who may be unfamiliar with the subject, behavioral profiling is where they ask you simple questions and check for how you respond. Ethnic profiling is where they look at your ethnicity. If you are of the wrong ethnicity or answer the questions in a way deemed by the airport authorities to be suspicious, you are taken for additional screening. The American tech-based system is where they check your person and luggage for chemical markers that may indicate you are carrying an explosive or other dangerous devices (knives etc), for instance, passing through a heavy-metal detector. Looking at the resolution, it is not limited to any particular country. The burden of proof in this debate is on my opponent. She needs to give compelling reasons why the Israeli system is superior, and I need to show why those reasons are not compelling.
Israeli-Style Behavioral Profiling in Airports is Superior to the American Tech-Based System

I recently debated this topic with an opponent who abruptly left the site after being caught plagiarizing on another debate. Since I feel robbed of the end of my debate, I'm putting it up again in the hopes that I may find a better (read: more honest) opponent and actually finish the debate.First round will be for acceptance, second round for arguments, third for rebuttals and cross-examination, and fourth for closing arguments.Please note that part of the Israeli system involves ethnic and behavioral profiling. This is one of the factors that I am arguing in favor of. This may or may not affect a challenger's decision to accept the debate.I look forward to debating whoever accepts! Thank you for your time.
Maternity leave should be granted to High School Students.

I apologize for the sarcasm and for misreading your opening argument. I do believe that this would serve well as time to bond for mother and child. Most importantly, I think the mother would get a chance to learn how to be a mother instead of just leaving the child with a parent or grandparent. It does not seem as if "another government run organization" would be necessary to help get mothers back into school after the break. Why can the school not tell them what they missed? Most teachers have a "late work" bin of some sort. The only ones bending over backwards will be the mothers.