BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Let me watch this.com(will be con) vs moviebox(which is pro)

First of all movie box is completely legal(don't argue this that's not up for debate) ok I think movie box is better because I don't have to sign up for an account and it's on mobile so you can enjoy a movie anywhere in the world with wifi it's sort of hard to lug a laptop around and you can predownload movies so you can watch without wifi And I'm pretty sure more people have mobile devices for movie box over computers and I know that you might think you need jailbreak for moviebox but now it's available without jailbreak though non jailbreak app vshare(which is also not illegal) And you don't need to pay for movies and you don't need to keep up with adobe flash player just to watch movies
Let me watch this.com(will be con) vs moviebox(which is pro)

It's clear that the con has won this debate. They have hands down conceded the entirety of the Counterplan, thus the CP ENTIRELY SOLVES THE CASE. The con also has conceded this entire notion of free websites is illegal and bad, so con wins through that too. Whether it be through the Counterplan or presumption, con must win. Case First, the pro tries to claim MovieBox is like the CP, in that it's an application. First, the pro has not provided any evidence that supports that assertion, whereas I have given a direct link to PopcornTime's website. Moreover, just because it's an application doesn't mean it's not riddled with viruses. Second, the pro says MovieBox is legal because it only puts movies up after it's on DVD, seemingly because that means that copyright is dead. That is clearly not true. Even if the movie's no longer circulating in the movies doesn't mean it's dropped by its makers; if it's a good movie, then the maker will market the heck out of it, and will grab onto it like a pair of Tiberian bats through the usage of copyrights. This also supports how MovieBox is illegal, which they dropped. Next, CP. Oh wait, they dropped everything on it!
COD: MW Series (Pro) vs COD: World at War Series (Con)

"Perks: Think about this for a minute; in MW2, the perk "Cold-Blooded" basically combined what "Assassin" and "Blind-Eye" did in MW3, and not everyone used Cold-Blooded in MW2. Why? Because there were other perks that people actually used. To this day I still can't decide between Hardline, Stopping Power, and Cold-Blooded, or between Sleight of Hand, Scavenger, Marathon, or Bling. I'll admit some perks such as One Man A" With perks, sure they may enhance the experience, but for if you want a realistic game, it kinda brings it down. Bringing up multiplier in call of duty, where can you command a tank or drive a vehicle in Modern warfare 2? In call of duty 3, you can drive, as mentioned above tanks and other vehicles.
COD: MW Series (Pro) vs COD: World at War Series (Con)

"Maps: the maps in WW1 and WW2 seem really small, restricted, and boring. After going back to MW2 I realized how great maps like Favela, Estate, Rundown, Invasion, and Highrise were. Besides Rust, the "small" MW2 maps are about the same size as the "medium" and "large" maps of WW1 and WW2." Yes, I have played on maps like Favela, Terminal, and estate. They are fun. But I like the multiplier experience in call of duty 3, you get to drive M4 Sherman, Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf.E, and willies jeep. You can use vehicles to your advantage instead of just running around and shooting each other. In MW2 you can summon a harrier jet, helicopter, or a predator strike, but my problem is that these options have a time constraint. That helicopter and jet is not going to stay there forever. And when you do control the gun on a helicopter or plane, you are vulnerable. I would rather that my chances commanding a Tiger 1 then being shot at in a vulnerable position. " Both balance and realistic. You may say there are clear victors when it comes to which guns are the best in MW2, but I disagree." I really don't like balance. If you balance a game about war you lose the realistic factor. Guns are not balanced. If you choose a shotgun, you need to be a player that gets up and close. Or a sniper, you need cover and distance. Pick a gun, you should pick one that suits your play style, not balance every thing. " the maps in WW1 and WW2 " What is a " WW1"? If you mean world war 1, I don't think any call of duties are based in that time period. I looked at the chart. I have both MW2 and WAW, as well as other call of duties like cod 2 big red one, cod 2( xbox 360), finest hour, etc. MW2 just did not give the same experience, WAW, and other call of duties that are world war 2 based give a real battle experience based on real historical events. "It is quality rather than quantity that matters." Lucius Annaeus Seneca Source: BrainyQuote
COD: MW Series (Pro) vs COD: World at War Series (Con)

.. Look at these charts and diagrams. . MW2 sold more than 7 mil units more than World at War! . http://www.vgchartz.com... Maps: the maps in WW1 and WW2 seem really small, restricted, and boring. After going back to MW2 I realized how great maps like Favela, Estate, Rundown, Invasion, and Highrise were. Besides Rust, the "small" MW2 maps are about the same size as the "medium" and "large" maps of WW1 and WW2. Size is important in maps because it not only makes the game feel more realistic, but it also creates different firefights in different parts of the map, so you never feel like you are getting killed by the same guy over and over. Guns: Both balance and realistic. You may say there are clear victors when it comes to which guns are the best in MW2, but I disagree. You may use a gun for a while and fall in love with it, but it's almost unavoidable that you will eventually try out a new gun and like it even more. This has happened to me a lot. For example, when I first started playing I thought the Scar-H was the king, but after giving the M4A1 a try, I found that I liked that more. Later, I switched to only using the M16A4, and eventually I went back to the Scar-H, but not for long. Basically what I'm saying is that there is a cycle, and it's really hard to choose a favorite gun which means they are generally balanced. However, LMGs could use a boost because besides the AUG they are rarely used. Perks: Think about this for a minute; in MW2, the perk "Cold-Blooded" basically combined what "Assassin" and "Blind-Eye" did in MW3, and not everyone used Cold-Blooded in MW2. Why? Because there were other perks that people actually used. To this day I still can't decide between Hardline, Stopping Power, and Cold-Blooded, or between Sleight of Hand, Scavenger, Marathon, or Bling. I'll admit some perks such as One Man A
British and English are not the same language.

British English was not the first English. What is now known as American English was the first, so by your logic, English actually belongs to the Americans. But that does not matter because your logic is flawed. It basically follows like this: P1) English was invented by the British. P2) British people speak English. C1) British English was the original English. C2) British and English are the same language. Not only is the first premise false, there is a logical gap between P2 and C2. These sources and many more can prove that the modern American accent used to be the way all English speakers spoke, disproving your premise that British English was the original one. http://the-toast.net... http://www.livescience.com...
British and English are not the same language.

English was formed by the British because it is their language. British English was the first English, this it belongs to them. Italian was a completely different version and reformation of Latin. This a different situation, Italian isn't referred to as Italian Latin like the way our American version of English is referred to as American English. Just saying English is not specific enough as I don't know according to the resolution which English you're discussing, but technically, English is British since they created the language
British and English are not the same language.

I am short on time. I apologize of this seems rushed. The British invented the English language, therefore it is their official language. If you just say "English", then it isn't specific enough to tell you what people are talking about, but I will refer to English as British English (British) since they have the rights to it. I also noticed a problem in Pro's argument. He states that "Everyone who speaks British speaks English, but not everyone who speaks British speaks English." This is a contradiction. Statement 1: Everyone who speaks British speaks English. Statement 2: NOT everyone who speaks British speaks English. And because this is a contradiction, Pro concedes that they are the same, since his own argument for why he claims they ar not the same is contradicted.
Obama is pushing for longer school hours for children each year.

In response to your points about how Obama's plan to lengthen school is in appropriate at the current time. You made the point that right now is the wrong time to try this with the economy in the state it is, but I say what better time to reform the way we educate future generations of America. It will be these generations that will need to learn how to avoid economic failures in the future. It will be costly, but with government funding put towards education to fund the longer day, as well as pay incentives for better teachers the cost can be negated by the students that the new system will produced. Is a better more globally competitive individual not worth the extra cost? I would say it more than is. Your second point was that students are already stressed and overscheduled. If you listen to President Obama's address bolstered after school activities are scheduled into the longer school day, even homework or extra help can be a part of the students' day if necessary. This according to experts and common sense will reduce the stress put on students while still increasing the time spent learning. It stands to reason that if time for clubs, sports and homework are scheduled then the students will not have to worry about when to get them done. Also with school ending nearer to when parents get out of work it will reduce stress of parents trying to find rides home from school for their children as they will be able to pick the kids up themselves. As far as your point that many Asian countries go to school shorter and still score higher. Three majorly competitive countries Japan, South Korea, And Hong Kong (considered its own country within China) consistently score higher than The U.S. in both math and science all go to school longer. In the same order 570, 597, 572 compared to the U.S. math score of 508. In science the scores are 554, 553, and 530 to the U.S. at 520. The numbers of days spent in school have the same trend, Japan at 243, South Korea at 220, and Hong Kong at 195 compared to the United States 180. So you can see that there is a correlation between length of time spent in class and test scores. References http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.eduinreview.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Obama is pushing for longer school hours for children each year.

President Obama is trying to push for longer school days and shorter summer vacations, he believes that American students are at a disadvantage compared to other kids around the world due to less time spent in the classroom. I, however, think this to be a terrible idea. (1) We all know that the U.S. is in a lot of debt right now, how can we afford to pay an extra $1,300 per student each year. This figure was pulled from a Massachusetts program that tried out this new schooling, it added up to a little over $17 million per year. (2) They say students now are way over scheduled between school, homework, clubs, sports, and just having a little downtime to themselves. How can they go to school until dinner time and still have time for all of there extracurricular activities. (3) According to the Huffington Post, U.S. students actually go to school more hours than most Asian countries do already, even though they typically score higher than us on math and science tests. How could this possibly be a good idea for us, especially right now? Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Obama is pushing for longer school hours for children each year.

If education was not plausible like you want the audience to believe then the current administration would not even put the idea out there. The money is available if the budget is partitioned correctly. Rather than just putting more money into education, money will be pulled out of other resources else to cover the cost. Once again, bringing American students above those of other countries is worth the cost. To deny The Children of our country the best education they could possibly have is just criminal; regardless of cost or anything else. As far has not having any money for a rainy day, the government doesn't keep lump sums of cash like people do. If they were to keep large amounts of money like that around it would devalue the rest of our currency. If the government does come by that kind of money, it will usually burn it to make the currency in circulation go up in value. After School activities while relevant are not on topic with education reform, therefore I do not see the point of arguing them any further. As far as your information about kids in the KIPP network, that is a fallacy of composition. What is true of that one part is not going to be true of the whole. Also as far as parents not being close to their students; this could be solved by redistricting where the children go to school. As far as school not being a full time job, it is the student's full time job. Now of course younger children would have more "play time" through out the school day, but the older children, it is their job to learn and become more productive members of society. Good job to you as well!
Obama is pushing for longer school hours for children each year.

I'm not saying that improvements can't be made to our education system; I just don't think that making kids go to school longer is the solution. The 15 million figure didn't just appear, in my first argument I discussed Massachusetts program and that it cost them 17 million dollars just for the year. However, I rounded down assuming that not all schools would be the same size or have the same needs. I realize that we can live life based on "what ifs", but I'm saying we should always be prepared for anything. Normally people have a savings account or back-up money for mishaps they aren't expecting, but we don't have any money. My point is that we're broke and cannot afford trillions of dollars worth of education reform, it's just not plausible. I don't think it's off point at all; it's an effect of our main issue. When making decisions like these you have to consider the consequences of your actions. Kids that are in the KIPP network go to school from 7:30am-5pm, this would be about the same hours as the program that Obama wants to enforce. Many parents get off at 5pm as well and don't live close enough to the school to be there right as school lets out. Therefore a lot of the kids who were riding the bus before will also be riding it at this time. Now a normal bus ride takes about an hour, give or take, to get through all of its stops. Not to mention that at 5pm it will be rush hour, slowing down the already treacherous traffic and also taking it longer to complete each stop. By the time most kids get home it will be 6pm or later. What time does that leave for dinner with the family, outside of school extra-curricular activities, hanging out with friends, and then being in bed by bedtime? These kids aren't working full time jobs; they are going to school and enjoying being a kid. Also, there are already private schools that offer these schedules. If parents decide that's what they want for their child they can choose to send them there. If they can't afford then maybe instead of changing the entire public school system they could instead create scholarships and grants for those who can't necessarily afford the extensive costs. Good Arguing! :)
Obama is pushing for longer school hours for children each year.

Your argument for not paying more for education is unsettling. First you are telling me that a better education is not worth paying for. Second, where did this 15 million a year figure come from? Nowhere in your sources do I see that number. Also, you seem to be assuming that the government funding will just be added to the budget rather than moved from somewhere else. Next you mentioned "what happens if" another major disaster strikes the U.S. What if nothing happens? What ifs can be twisted and turned any way one would like. However, humoring your what if, the parts of the government that fund education and those that fund disaster response are completely separate so funding a natural disaster would not be a problem. Now you bring up a point about activities outside of school, this is off point; we are not debating on reforming activities outside of school. Yes, they may have to adapt to the new school schedule, but what wont? Adaption will need to be made, but what I'm trying to get across is that it is worth the adapting to put American students at the top of the charts. Next you seem to think that kids will have no time to meet with friends from other schools, since time for homework and after school activities will be built into the day, any time after school would be time for friends from other school. As well as weekends just like normal. Now, going back to your original point where you said that students were already over scheduled, when did they have time to meet with friends then? You talk about needing better teachers. Obama actually said that he was for offering teachers pay incentives for meeting higher standards of performance. So teacher reform is part of the plan for education reform. References: http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.eduinreview.com...
Obama is pushing for longer school hours for children each year.

How can we justify spending even more money that we don't have? According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, we are in debt $12,005,995,545,151.22. So let's say to reform each school it would cost $15 million per year and that there are approximately 100,000 public schools in the United States. That would come to a grand total of $1,500,000,000,000 just for a single year. Even if we could justify spending that much more on education, would we want to put ourselves into that situation? What happens if we have another Hurricane Katrina catastrophe and need billions of dollars for that and we don't have it because we wasted it on longer school days? Including bolstered after school activities would be a good idea except for what if the student doesn't play sports for the school? For example, I was a competitive gymnast through middle school and part of high school and it was in no way connected to the school. We had practice every evening from 4-8pm and were penalized for being late. How fair would it be for those students who wanted to participate in activities outside of school? Not only that, but it would be difficult for these kids to meet other friends in their community, not just one's that they had class with everyday. You are right; students in Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong go to school more days out of the year, but not necessarily for more hours. This quote is from my original source The Huffington Post: "Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests – Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days)." So you see that actually we are going to school longer than them, and still scoring low. Maybe the problem doesn't lie in creating longer school days, but instead in hiring better qualified teachers and trying to boost our children's work ethic. Sources: http://www.brillig.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Homework given to students' by teachers is a waste of time.

As a computer science major, I have written dozens of computer programs in Java, assembly language, SQL, and a variety of other languages. Most of these programs were written as part of homework assignments given by the instructor. If I had not been assigned these programs, or not written them, I would not have been able to grasp how to program, because there is no way to learn the skill of programming except through repeated practice. Computer science is not the only discipline like this. No one can learn mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, or a number of other disciplines without doing an enormous amount of studying on their own, apart from class instruction. This is obvious from even a passing acquaintance with the hard sciences. In addition, it is the expert consensus of the teachers who teach classes in these disciplines, which is why all of them give homework assignments to students taking these classes. Since homework is necessary to learn the hard sciences, it is clear that the hard sciences are a counterexample to my opponent's claim that homework is unnecessary, so we should negate the resolution. My opponent has made three arguments against the value of homework: 1. It adds nothing to the time spent in school. 2. It takes up a lot of time that could be spent doing other things. 3. There is no evidence that it yields non-academic benefits. Let's consider these points one by one. Point 1 is simply mistaken when it comes to the hard sciences. No one can learn to do physics or chemistry, or learn to program, without sitting down on their own and working through example problems. The only way to achieve comparable benefits without homework would be to spend hours of class time having students quietly work through problems. Point 2 overlooks the importance of learning concrete practical skills. It is more important to learn algebra than to get good at soccer, or other forms of recreation. Young people should spend some time on recreation, but the main focus should be building up a foundation of knowledge that they can carry into the future. Point 3, even if true, overlooks the fact that developing good study habits is a virtue in and of itself, regardless of whether it leads to other virtues. Having solid study habits will help students learn the skills to become good at any profession they choose to pursue. For these reasons, we should negate. Thank you.
Should monkeys be considered persons

1.Animals exist only to benefit humans. 2.Only human pain is morally relevant. 3.The pain of a monkey is irrelevant because no one cares about them. 4.An act of kindness is not morally right and similarly, cruelty is not morally wrong. 5.Just because monkeys are similar to humans does not necessarily mean they are the same. 6.Monkeys and animals cannot hold responsibilities and duties that humans can. 7.Animals, such as monkeys are not literate, and do not have the abilities or intelligence humans do, therefore they have less inherent value 8.Because monkeys are not literate, they cannot survive like humans. 9.Monkeys are similar to children, but the difference is, children have human rights and monkeys do not have any rights. 10.A child cannot legally be punished for his or her actions, similar to the way a monkey cannot. 11.Just because a select few monkeys were capable of getting along with humans, does not necessarily mean all of them will. 12.If taking monkeys out of their habitat will reduce their chance of survival, why would one want to put them in a human society will they will not be able to survive? 13.Just because humans know animals feel pain, does not necessarily make that pain morally wrong. 14.Monkeys do not have rights and therefore are not protected by anyone except their own kind. 15.Monkeys are primates, not humans. 16.Monkeys are wild animals and should be treated as such. Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons.