BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round

Im a little disappointed with the rebuttal, I was hoping for a response with some counter-arguemets. I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement "someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education" Do you mean a decrease in the education of the teacher? Or the teacher becoming a worse teacher to the students? Either way this doesn't completely make sense. There are teachers that can improve or worsen in their teaching over time, but all schools have annual or more frequent, workshops to develop their teaching skills. Even tho the teachers contracts are based on an entire 'year' of work. Their contracts would have to be re-negotiated based on the number of hours worked. But, the less-stringent schedule to meet the strict curriculum requirements , would have to be considered as well as the shorter work day. You are correct, the taxes would increase, and this would likely cause the combining of school districts to consolidate the tax-payers (because local property owners pay school taxes regardless of whether or not they have children). My argument was more towards the inconvenience of having to care for/making sure they are cared for by someone, while the parents are at work. Most of the options for child care, do not include furthering their education. Which is money well spent vs having your child play at a day care center.
Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round

The American Schooling System is quite unique in its own way. The education system is the one of the only systems where someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education. I would have to argue that even though your idea is moral it would bring a huge burden to the tax payers in this country, you claim that it would save money to parents but at the same time they would be paying much more in taxes for these salaries going to teachers
should the legal driving age be 13 and up

I will begin my thesis by saying that the average weight of a car is 4,000+ pounds, this will be important in the future.I believe that the current age restrictions on driving we have today are perfect where they are at, I believe that a 13 year old human being is not mentally mature, nor are they developed enough to be able to competently drive a vehicle, let alone alongside adult drivers on the road. A lowering of the driving age, theoretically, anyways would impact drivers all across America (assuming that's where the driving age is lowered).1: InsuranceAs we know insurance is something that every driver on the road needs in order to legally drive on the roads in the United States, and to allow a driving age of 13 puts not only a large liability on insrance companies and on the customers of said insurance companies. Insurance rates for a 13 year old driver would be exponentially higher than the already exponentially higher car insurance of 16 year old teen drivers. 2: LiabilityI believe that if driving on public roads at 13 becomes legal that a massive liabilty will be put onto the drivers parents, and also onto the shoulders of the kid themselves in a way, seeing as the child would have to act expectantly mature for being a driver. It may not come as much of a surprise, but I would not allow any 13 year old to operate a vehicle unless it was a patch of private property and there's no way for the kid to cause damage to himself or others
Kim Kardashian is better than Kylie Jenner

Again, Kylie jenner is only the second richest of the family due to KIM. Where would kylie be without the already present famous reputation that she inherited from kim due to her sex tape. Kylie would be just another 19 year old, but instead, she did not even need to go college or university. Her lip kit's success was only made possible through Kim, and the quality of her products are already laughable. Reports of her lip kits being flaky or coming off when eating is as common as her name. And her sales on her store? you mean the jackets that are priced down to 899 from 999? Kylie is not only a bad salesperson, she is also a bad role model. She has over 90 million followers on instagram, allowing her to help any cause she wishes to help due to her influence over these young and impressionable followers. Instead, she posts not one, but two photos of her smoking. What message does this give to her followers? Kim, on the other hand, promotes body equality, and loving yourself, through posting numerous photos and captions supporting different body types. She also challenges racial stereotypes, as seen when she confronts a man wearing black face in vienna. Kim is a loving, empathetic, and caring human, and kylie has much to learn from her.
Kim Kardashian is better than Kylie Jenner

Kylie Jenner clearly outdoes Kim Kardashian, due to the fact that she is only 19, and the youngest Kardashian/Jenner family and is the second highest earner, below Kim Kardashian who over 15 years in the business. Kylie Jenner, already has a whole makeup line at a price of $30, which, compared to other makeup brands, such as, Mecca and Sephora, is a reasonable and moderate price. Kylie Jenner, along with her sister, Kendall Jenner, have a clothing line and a website for it, with an entire section devoted to sales and discounted clothing, making the last statement by the affirmative side, untrue. This reasons all point to Kylie Jenner, ultimately being better than Kim Kardashian.
Kim Kardashian is better than Kylie Jenner

Where do i begin, Kylie Jenner would be nothing without her most important, fabulous, and entrepreneurial sister, Kim Kardashian. Not only has Kim taken her tape and transformed it into the massive success that she is now, something that would have destroyed any other career, she also brought the rest of her family up with her, with Kylie grabbing on the train heading north (west). Kim is a saint (west) compared to kylie, who charges her loyal fans $30 for one lip kit, which consists of ONE lip liner and ONE lipstick. Kim, on the other hand, gives her fans numerous amounts of discounts on her store DASH. When has kylie done anything of the sort.
Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

Zombies are defined for the sake of this debate as ghoulish bodies of humans who have been reanimated after death by a virus, magic, etc. that typically attempt to bite humans in order to spread their plague or eat the brains of the human. Examples of slow moving zombies are "Max Brooks" Zombies. The zombies in Shaun of the Dead. Examples of fast moving zombies include Zombies from 28 days later and The World War Z movie. The purpose of this discussion is to debate whether or not "Slow moving" zombies are more realistic than "fast moving" zombies. Realistic is defined as:having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. orrepresenting familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life. I look forward to a challenger.
Wage Labour is Coercive

Wage labour is coercion, i.e. unjust, immoral, etc. This debate could be titled 'Capitalism is a Coercive System', as that is what I will be trying to prove, but I thought the focus should be on wage labour, which is just another way to describe paid employment. First round for acceptance, second for opening arguments (no rebuttals); do whatever you want with the third and fourth. I am coming to this debate as an anarchist, a libertarian socialist. If you want to take this debate with the intention of espousing 1950s' 'anti-communist' rhetoric, then you will probably only succeed in wasting everyone's time, though due to the fact that this site is dominated by the moderate and the extreme right, you will probably win anyway - so try to at least make it interesting for me.
Nursey Rhyme Rap Battle

Sorry, last round i should have said the nursery rhyme was "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt". Also, i will post a link to danielle's round 2 rap. Don't vote bomb her yet voters.... Hey.... black sheep, Have you any wool? No sir, no sir, my three bags are sold One for my master And one for the dame One for the little boy who lives down the lane All out, sorry man... . . . Stick it, light it, don't fight it C'mon, dust, bite it, too much might it? You know it's everyday bro Sittin' here taking people out of the flow Man you gotta let go All the while i make big dough Wool is your tool to smoke this sh*t that's whack, it's called crack Once you go this way you don't get away, stop by any time, we do this all day Twenty two minutes of bliss, it's something everyone's gonna miss Even after one go, it's all you'll ever know Sitting here, eating nuggets, playing dice, you know it's nice to Look outside and see sleet and tornadoes, this is how i goes I've got the grit, i'll never quit, and that's it Hey.... black sheep, Have you any wool? Yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags to be sold
Nursey Rhyme Rap Battle

I N T R O: John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt His name is my name too Whenever we go out The people always shout John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Ta da da ya da ya da Ta da da ya da ya da Ta da da ya da ya da Ta da da ya da ya da da-da da-da da-da-da-da-da da-da da-da da-da-da-da-da da-da da-da da-da-da-da-da R A P: J J J S, people know we're the best Where ever we roll in we leave a mess (yeah) J J J S times two, we're coming for you No moment dull predictable or blue We give nights people never knew Every day we go out we go out COLD Don't you know fortune favors the bold? This neverland, it don't get old The world doesn't revolve around us We do this for the fans, bliss or bus(t) John, whole night gone Jacob, stories you can only make up Jingleheimer, teen to old timer Schmidt, we're ligit From the day we were born to the end of time We always be droppin' another rhyme In our club a talking man becomes a mime Our car's a holy sign to Forget all about the pain you knew First night splits your life in two Our eternal words are glue This is the sh!t Now don't miss it It's a night you'll never remember And a moment you'll never forget You know, we all just running out of road Turn up that music before ya croak like a toad Rush into 'dis hell like a woad [0] Suicide mode Blood becomes liquid gold This sweat never let you fold Forget what you were told On your deathbed is all you want all you have to show for your life is an already dead person covered in that mold? Man f*ck that, go out in a crash not with a flat Boy what you livin' for? Happy to money is immeasurably more Eventually death comes and knock knock your door Right here with us is where YOU belong We make the seconds minutes long Our mouths a bong Just giiiiive in and don't try strong John, whole night gone Jacob, stories you can only make up Jingleheimer, teen to old timer Schmidt, we're ligit [0] - Woad raider https://www.ageofempires.com...
Nursey Rhyme Rap Battle

This is going to be a rap battle based off of nursery rhymes. The raps will be based off of them. You can only base them of rhymes from this page: http://www.nurseryrhymes.org... , to avoid sematics or whatever. If it isn't on there don't use it. So.... this is pretty self explanatory. First round is acceptance so you'll see what i mean in round 2. Only refer and base your rap off of one per round. Voters, if one of us breaks a rule vote-nuke the one who did so. I set a 2k character limit by the way. Ok, let's rig a jig jig!
War on Terror- the media's influence

Well, I firmly believe that I should win this debate because "silence is compliance". The Pro side dropped all my arguments, and therefore the only conclusion I can reach is that she, in fact, agrees with them. I think that my arguments stand forthemselves, and since the Pro side dropped the most important part of the debate, I should win by default. I also believe I won on arguments to, but that it for the voter to decide. Thank you.
War on Terror- the media's influence

I appreciate your view. As for watching liberal television, I don't. I'm more of a Fox kind of person. I was referring to the media as a whole, not necessarily singling out a specific network. Fox is fantastic. I do believe that the media has influenced the public view in a very negative way. I have talked to people who have been to Iraq and lived in Iraq, and they know that the people there appreciate the Americans liberating their country. They talk to them, and the majority of the people believe in our cause, and are so grateful. The media rarely shows us that aspect of the war. For the most part, all we see is negativity, and it lowers the moral of the country, and of our troops. The media and the government has long been at conflict with each other and it makes it nearly impossible to get a fair report of current events. The American people are easily influenced, and the media should be using their power for the good of the country, and not for the bad. The reason why the opinion of the war here in America is bad, is because that's all we've been exposed to. To your comment of the war not going well, I disagree. Since the surge the loss of life of American troops has dropped dramatically. Iraq is finally becoming an independent country. No war is good, but this one was necessary. We prevented a terror network so large, it would be impossible to demolish. The media shows carnage and blood, which lowers the moral of the country, and gives us a negative aspect of the war, when really we should consider this as a great success.
War on Terror- the media's influence

First off, I want to clarify what you are arguing. You are arguing that the media is biased, right? That's what I'm going to be attacking, anyway. You have several points. 1. You say that the media ONLY shows the bad things about the War On Terror 2. You say that media bias is a bad thing I'll go ahead and attack both, while bringing up some more points. Point 1 - The media only shows the bad things about the War on Terror That is a ridiculous claim, and I guess you have only been watching liberal sources. Linda Vaster on Dayside regularly airs a segment called "Only on Fox." The segment is devoted to good news stories about Iraq and our troops, and is being picked up by Fox. This really destroys your point that only negative stories on the war are being published. Anyway, media tends to reflect the public opinion, and the public opinion is overwhelmingly that the War in Iraq is and has been a waste of time. Thus, most of the media portrays it like that. However, there are a few hardcore conservative media groups (Fox being the most noted one) that still portray Iraq as a success. They are actually noted as being just as biased (if not more) than the groups that portray Iraq negatively. You asked, "Where did all the fair reporting go?" I ask... was it ever here? There aren't many examples of unbiased news programs really... ever. However you put forth the notion that the entire media is biased. That is what I find wrong with your argument. You obviously haven't looked hard enough to find different sides to the story. Not only that, but Iraq is ONE facet of America that news programs report on. You can't say that just because you think the media reports unfairly on Iraq, that the entire media is 100% biased. Try going here for your conservative fix: http://www.foxnews.com... Also, the Iraq war may just be going badly. The one news station that constantly reports good things about the war (Fox) actually appears to be the most biased. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... "A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq." Could it be that the war just isn't going well?! Point 2 - Bias may or may not be bad, but the fact is... it is inevitable. It has been around since the invention of the printing press... It is inevitable and a necessity to journalism. The only way to get around it is to look at sources on both ends of the spectrum. Also, you say it is bad... but what is the negative impact of it? Anyway... looking forward to your responses.
War on Terror- the media's influence

I believe the media has only shown the American public the negative aspect of the War on Terror. I want to know what happened to responsible journalism. Since the surge began, stories of the war have dropped dramatically. Why? Simply because the war is going well and the media has nothing bad to report about. The second you hear of a car bomb or a suicide bomber attack, it's the headline of the nightly news. I find this troubling beyond belief. If we can't rely on the only source of information then how are we supposed to make an unbaised decision on any matter if what we are watching is so incredibly baised? We can't. The media should be focusing on the accomplishments that we've made in the Middle East, not just the set backs. It's insulting to the brave men and women of the armed forces that their accomplishments are ignored. We need to bring back responsible journalism and we should be given both sides of the story oppose to only one side which is based on the belives of network executives.
Abortion, (from athiest perspective.)

I have here a debate I decided to play devils advocate with to make a point that you have no ground to stand on to be pro-life if there is no god. http://www.debate.org... but unfortounatly my newb opponent could not even keep his account active long enough to finish 2 rounds of the debate, but I put a lot of effert in my case for that debate and I'm tired of my efforts being waisted on people who cant finish there debates. So I start this debate anew, and here are the terms for whoever wants to pick up the challenge. 1) My round one arguments are the round one arguments of the debate in the link I gave. so yes, you have to read it to accapt this challenge, http://www.debate.org... 2) By accapting this challenge you are agreeing to pick up from where my opponent left off in the above link that I said you need to read http://www.debate.org... 3) It is preffered that you take this debate only if your an athiest and against abortion, but if your not, just understand you position is the Con to the resolution and it's a condition that we make our cases as if it's a known fact that there is no God. 4) I put a percintile ranking requirment on the debate. I had too, I'm tired of 'Crash and Burn' debate's. Thats all, good luck to whoever accapts, and please, please, please, please, please.... finish this debate if you accapt it. I gave a three day period to make your next argument it's not a hard commitment to keep.
Abortion, (from athiest perspective.)

thank you for you timely response I understand what my opponent is trying to say about his phrase that all babies that can die must. I didn't take it at the most literal sense I took it at face value, however when the phrase is examined and defined can is literally a word that implies possibility or having the potential or ability to do something so when you say all babies that have the potential to die must, or that have a possibility of dying must, aren't you basically saying that all babies must die? Overpopulation is very serious however we still haven't even reached carrying capacity so that only means that overpopulation is simply not going to happen in the next few years since their is no sign of disease mutating and killing off the population is apparent that we aren't overpopulated. Homosapien race is the only race that doesn't pass on genes for instincts we have adaptations in the beginning of our early stages of life for learning via seeing and hearing. and good genes aren't passed on by giving something to the population it's by hooking up with someone because they either look good or run fast however that doesn't guarantee that their kid will look good or run fast. that is exactly what I'm saying "easy come easy go" however I hold that everyone should have a chance at life and I never give the courts a lot of merit but they have recognized that a baby is basically a human in the third trimester. Also everyone should have a chance at life because to deny someone the right to life simply on the basis of they're not human yet however that is completely arbitrary like voting somebody placed an imaginary line and said this is when you become human although that's debatable because how can one define "human" if it is when to species from the race homosapiens consummate then what's the problem? a Biologist would say all life begins at conception. so now your argument is it's not that one suffers but how one suffers. Is the quantity of suffering relevant? should a special place be granted to those who suffer more? is the suffering of a mother who lost a son much less of that of a mother who lost a son in a concentration camp? and then you qualify how babies die by saying that they die relatively quickly you don't contest that it is barbaric or that it causes suffering.
Is nature worth more attention than technology

The con, has made an interesting statement, that ignoring technology will worsen the negative impact technology has on nature. Which is definately true, if you look at the problem from todays point of view. However I have started this debate from a philosophical point of view. Would humanity be better of, if instead of focusing on developing machines, we would focus on nature. The development of technology has, as con has nicely said, only devistaded nature. Global warming, oil wars, nuclear bombs, acid rains, and so on. As Larry West, enviromental issues expert, puts out in his arcticle (link: http://environment.about.com... ) "Global warming is not only a threat to our future health, it already contributes to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually, according to a team of health and climate scientists at the World Health Organization and the University of Wisconsin at Madison—and those numbers could double by 2030." And these are just the consequences of global warming. Think about Hiroshima, World Wars, Oil wars... All, because of the rise in technology.Wouldn't we be better off without machines, without technology... Now I don't claim, that there wouldn't be wars, if there was no technology. However the number of casualties would drop significantly and the damage done to Earth would be way smaller than it is now.
Is nature worth more attention than technology

This debate not being discussed for the last week saddened me. I was really looking forward to it :( I believe pro and I agree that nature is important. We disagree on whether technology should be focused on greater. I believe technology should have the greater focus as it will cause a greater impact on nature. As previously stated, we agree that some technology is bad. We agree that chemical and biological weapons are bad. One cool piece of technology that is good for nature is the reforesting of areas by dropping saplings from the back of aircraft [1]. Pro writes about eastern medicine. Both eastern and western medicines explore the same plants and animals. Earlier this week, a wasp poison was found to help kill mutated cells while not being harmful to the body [2]. Both eastern and western medical practices will benefit from this discovery. Western medicines like to produce synthetic chemicals, so that the cures and/or treatments can reach a wider populace at a greater speed as opposed to eastern medicines. The focus of this and the next generation should be correcting bad technologies and innovation towards new technologies to address global warming once and for all. Ps. I really like your profile picture :) Sources [1]: http://s.hswstatic.com... and [2]: or http://www.aol.com...