BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Equitable funding for K-12 Public School system will improve overall education outcome in the US

We are here today to discuss equitable funding for schools. The question here is equitable to WHOM? As the system stands, money is distributed to schools both by the federal government and by the states. Federally, money is currently determined by the inane standards set by No Child Left Behind. I would not be surprised if my opponent is with me in standing against that failed policy, both for creating unequal financial distribution amongst schools and doing little to actually improve educational standards. But, while No Child Left Behind is inequatable, attempts to equalize finances amongst different schools would also be a disaster for very much the same reason things are so uneven today. To explore this more deeply, let us look at how States typically fund schools. In most states, some portion of tax revenue goes to funding education, and in most states, whether that piece of the financial pie is large or small, it IS actually disbursed equally between schools in different areas. While this is well-intentioned to level the playing field between schools, it's folly lies in different levels of wealth in the areas recieving money. We'll get into more detail on this as the debate progresses, but to keep it short for now, it is my contention that funding schools UNEQUALLY to favor and compensate schools in poor-er neighborhoods will have better results for education than funding rich schools and poor schools equally. Unequal funding is the only way to create fair results in our school system, otherwise, as with so many aspects of our society, education will only continue to help the rich get richer at the expense of poorer students.
Equitable funding for K-12 Public School system will improve overall education outcome in the US

Opening Statement:First, I believe both I and my opponent (in fact, most of our voters) accept that K-12 education in the United States is broken and have failed to empower our future generations to be competitive in the global economy. The latest result from PISA showed the United States ranked number 30th in mathematics, 20th in reading, and 23rd in science. [1] US companies are not only outsource manufacturing jobs to third world nations, but they are also insourcing high skilled technical workers such as engineers and statisticians; [2] more disturbingly, STEM graduate programs in the US are also dependent on prospective students from oversea, with foreign students making up the majority of enrollments according to a study from NFAP. [3] During my time as a graduate student in Mathematics, I can attest that the majority of the faculties and students received their primary and secondary education from oversea, with products of US K-12 education system constitute less than 10% of the department. Simply put, students graduated from our grade schools are no longer the most attractive prospect nor most academically prepared individuals in comparison to their global competitors. In this debate, I argue and will show with logic and evidences that the problem plaguing our K-12 system can be more effectively dealt with by making funding more equitable for primary and secondary schools in the US. Thank you and I am looking forward to my opponent's opening statement!
I should kill myself

Thanks for accepting. I'm confused with my life. I live in a small poor country. However, I do not wish to tell the name of my country. Our culture in this country is very different. Our culture is full of prejudices, such as sexism, racism etc. Most of the people here are uneducated. Educated people are blind to all the prejudices. Our political system is corrupted. I was born in a very dangerous family. My father is the leader of gangsters. He works in the underground. He is a very bad person. He tortures my mother physically and mentally. He also tortures me mentally a lot. My dad works for our government and is active politician as well. So, complaining to police will not work. They obey my dad. My mother is very ill. I have a little sister whom I love the most. I'm tired of listening to all the insults all day. My relatives and friends also insults me. They call me "a worthless piece of trash" and etc. I'm being constantly insulted everyday. Nobody here understands my talent. There is no freedom of choice. People and especially my dad is a hypocrite. There is no room for rational conversation. It's true that I'm not very skilled at doing tasks. I guess I really am a worthless piece of trash. I'm tired of losing. I'm sick of my failure. My parents don't understand me. They hardly let me do anything. I'm currently using internet hiding in a room because my dad will not let me use it. I feel like there is no escape. What's the point of this life? I should kill myself.
L. Paul Bremer messed up Iraq

In closing, allow me to rebut some arguments made by my opponents. Basically, he insisted that the nationalistic ties amongst the three major groups (Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurd) are greater than their religious and/or ethnic bonds; therefore, there is no need to dissolve the Iraqi Army in lieu of Shi'ite sensibilities over the oppression during the Saddam era. I beg to differ; the fact that these people identify themselves as Shi'ite, Sunni or Kurd itself tells us that they consider their ethnic-religious identity to be the most important identifying aspect of themselves. Yes, perhaps there are Shi'ite troops fighting for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but that is merely due to a greater threat posed by external aggression, which is not applicable in today's situation. Indeed, even in those days, the troops are segregated, reminiscent to the days when African-Americans fight in different regiments in the US military in WW2. Fighting side-by-side does not by any means erase the grudges endured by decades of Sunni oppression; for the sake of maintaining peaceful relations with the Shi'ite majority, the dissolution of the Iraqi army is just and necessary. I do not understand how my opponent can say that the military is the institution that unifies Shi'ite and Sunni; under Saddam, Shi'ites are actively repressed; so much so that a Christian (Tariq Aziz, for example), have a better chance of being promoted compared to a Shi'ite. Shi'ite civilians enthusiastically supported the Americans during the 1st Gulf War (and as a result, was equally enthusiastically repressed by Saddam later on, especially when American military help failed to materialize at the end of the war). In short, the "old" Iraqi army is hopelessly dominated by the Sunnis, and the Shi'ite will not accept this. De-Ba'athification of the Iraqi civil service is important; just as the Allies instituted a program of de-Nazification, dismissal of the civil service ensures that any rogue elements are suppressed, while trustworthy Iraqis who have underwent background checks are re-hired as part of the new government. It is a painful process, I admit, especially if you have to wait for your background clearance, but I believe that for the sake of rooting out the last remnants of hard-core Saddamites, it is a necessary step. Besides, with the orgiastic looting of hospitals and offices after the fall of Saddam, it's not like they have a place to work in, anyway. In conclusion, the current condition in Iraq predates Bremer, and it is most unfair to blame him for most of the ills plaguing the beautiful land today.
L. Paul Bremer messed up Iraq

You are arguing that Iraq has age-long cultural and religious problems that go beyond the invasion of 2003. I agree; I'm not saying that L. Paul Bremer is responsible for all the problems that ever happened or will happen in iraq. I'm saying that if it weren't for his mistakes and his disastrous policies, Iraq would have been less torn by violence (not empty of violence, just *less* of it) and the country would be on the road to reconstruction quicker and more efficiently. So, do you stand by your argument, and argue that L. Paul Bremer didn't contribute at all to the problems in Iraq, and that all the terrible things in Iraq were inevitable, or do you wish to concede this debate?
L. Paul Bremer messed up Iraq

Before anything else, I would like to state that I accept Conor's definition of "messed up" as Paul Bremer being "responsible for much of the sectarian bloodshed and that occurred in Iraq after the invasion as well as the slow reconstruction". As he is the initiator of the debate, I eagerly await Conor's argumentation to back up his assertion that the mess in Iraq mostly lies at the feet of Paul Bremer. As for me, I anticipate that my future arguments will be on how the current chaos in Iraq is more due to the historical antagonism of all parties involved, and also how most of the factors that contribute to this "messed up" situation are beyond Bremer's control.
As parents, we would ban children from playing video games depicting women in skimpy costumes

In round 2, pro states "My first argument is that these representation of women enforces the belief or the culture that women are present merely as sex symbols" The point of a video game is to make it realistic for the gamer to play and enjoy. So when they give female characters these short and revealing costumes they're only trying to give the gamer a realistic experience. Because there are real females out there who dress in short, revealing clothes in public. Also the gaming industry is dominated by males, which is probably why there are females in little to no clothes in video games, maybe this is how males in the video game business to catch people's attention. My opponent is wrong when she/he says this, No (male) will ever look at a female character and think of it as a "sex symbol". also in round 2, pro states... "This is exaggerated by physical oversexualisation like impossibly wide hips and chests. Kids unconsciously register this and grow up with this female stereotyping". Now days a lot of females tend to get plastic surgery, making them get wider hips, bigger chests, and bigger buttocks. So not only video games give kids this idea of females having, bigger everything but real women out there in the public do to. With their fake "features", younger males would confirm that the type of females in video games is exactly like the type of women you can find in real life. "the camera is always someone showing part of her butt and the suggestive sway of her hips in the catsuit as she walks." There are a lot of women out there who sway their hips while walking. It not something only females in video games do, for a lot of them do it, just go out into the public and see for yourself. In Conclusion, We shouldn't ban these types of games from our children because it's not really gonna change anything. There's both females with short and revealing clothes in both video games and the public It's been a great debate pro, i apologize for forfeiting round 2.
As parents, we would ban children from playing video games depicting women in skimpy costumes

My opponent says that it is all a matter of perspective. Sadly, in most scenes where a male character gets shirtless, the camera does not pan up and down their body. Sure, anything can be sexually objectifying if you look at it that way, but when the camera is strategically placed over a female's body it's hard to think that that is not done for audience benefit. Furthermore, the majority of video games do not at all depict male characters in this way. But you will find no shortage of female characters dressed provocatively in questionable poses. For example, in the Batman games, Batman is not sexualized but Catwoman appears in skin tight latex catsuit. If you argue that this is because of the character, you will find that when you control Catwoman, the camera is always someone showing part of her butt and the suggestive sway of her hips in the catsuit as she walks. In the game Street Fighter, yes there are shirtless males but that's about it. They are shirtless in a game which is arguably mostly played by guys anyway. And then, there are female characters dressed in low cut shirts and skirts where the fact is you don't need to (especially as a girl) to show skin to prove you are 'strong'. The only reason the character is showing skin here is to be sexy, not to show their fighting strength. At the end of the day, my opponent argues that both male and females are objectified. To me, that is beside the point. If a particular video game objectives men or women, then parents need to ban their children from playing them. Thus, if a video game depicts a female in a skimpy costume, this video game should not be circulated among the kids. So long as my opponent agrees that children should not be playing any video game that objectifies either sex, he is still agreeing with me and not actually opposing the motion. My opponent also never rebutted the argument that these games are detrimental to the development of children.
As parents, we would ban children from playing video games depicting women in skimpy costumes

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, to you, there's no problem with male characters who are shirtless because it just proves how strong the character is, and to me, i have no problem with females with little clothing on because it just shows how strong and awesome they are. This sort of goes both ways because (to males) male video game characters who do wear little to no clothing can be seen as sex symbols or objectifying but it's just that, to us males, it's not really a big deal or something to worry about. I don't how you see female characters in video games with a big cleavage or waist objectifying but a male muscular man with a perfect body and abs not objectifying, not all men look like this. I guess the only reason why you're saying this is because you're looking at it from a females perspective. To me, both genders are objectified in video games, so if you were to ban all games with females wearing skimpy costumes then you'd probably be left with the games where the male characters (looking muscular and having abs) can be used, which again to a males perspective, is objectifying.
As parents, we would ban children from playing video games depicting women in skimpy costumes

Video games are very influential on a child's development. Video games today, are seen not as a mere time-waster to spend the summers indoors, but as a very engaging and stimulating platform where kids learn to think critically, where they increase their vocab reading and listening to the audio, and where they can challenge themselves and compete healthily with peers. More and more parents allow their kids to play video games while still controlling the amount of hours spent and the material which is played. However, many parents seem to overlook that having females who are dressed in revealing attires can be very damaging to their kids. They make the excuse that kids are 'too young' to understand sexual stimulus. My first argument is that these representation of women enforces the belief or the culture that women are present merely as sex symbols. Not only do very little video games have lead heroines, the heroines that do exist (sometimes in supporting roles) choose to turn up in as little clothes as possible. This is exaggerated by physical oversexualisation like impossibly wide hips and chests. Kids unconsciously register this and grow up with this female stereotyping. This is particularly damaging to young female gamers who find a lack of female role models. This is why 'gaming' is almost entirely synonymous with a male audience. Even if you say that men sometimes turn up shirtless, the physical attributes of the male character just proves how strong he is. But when the female character is dressed skimpily, it is not to show how strong she is but merely to 'reward' the gamer by exposing more skin. In games like Lara Croft, the camera is placed at strategic angles to make sure the gamer has a good glimpse of her legs, cleavage etc. Boys and girls learn about the world through media including video games. We don't want them to view females merely as eye candy.
As parents, we would ban children from playing video games depicting women in skimpy costumes

Short debate. 2000 characters per round. This debate uses judge voting and 7 judges have been nominated. The judges are: Wylted, Ragnar, bladerunner060, YYW, whiteflame, lannan13 and Blade-of-Truth. Whether said judges actually accept their nomination and place their vote is entirely up to them. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE. Definition: The video games meant here are those which although not targeted just for children, they are also deemed to be appropriate for kids (14 years of age and below). These include but not restricted to the Tomb Raider series, catwoman, final fantasy and many, many more. In these video games, female characters are almost always dressed skimpily. The popular saying of "you would think she would wear more armor' comes to mind. This of course, does not include video games which are explicitly made for adult entertainment. Nor is it an issue if kids are old enough, say around 15 years of age. This debate will not be on the role of females in the video games or how they walk, talk etc. It is only on the attire. Looking forward to a good debate.
The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

PrefaceTUF actually suggested this as a topic to me awhile ago, and I liked it. I am happy to now have the chance to debate it! Thanks to Oro for agreeing to take me on :)Full TopicThe Treaty of Versailles (WWI) was unjust. Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks. :)
DDODCL Season 1 Debate: Team Sine Nomine VS Team Thrawn

I have been out of town all week and limited to my cell phone. But I clearly don't care enough about a semantics debate to bother wasting time tying to further convince you that the resolution was poorly worded. We provided arguments why we feel it meant what it should have meant, and at this point it's up to the voters on who they think was right with the definitional debate. Our opponent should stop saying these are dropped arguments, it's a matter of percepting the resolution differently. At any rate good luck in the voting period.
DDODCL Season 1 Debate: Team Sine Nomine VS Team Thrawn

So unfortunately there isn't really a way to resist this debate in becoming about semantics. I wish it wasn't this way, and I've never had a debate go this way, but our team and others thought the meaning of this resolution was a private sector (society) not paying for it, and government paying for it. We weren't looking for a devils advocate debate, and aren't willing to change to one now. We are conceding the contentional debate, as it falls in line with our goals and BOP in this debate. The Semantics Debate "Publicly Funding" doesn't mean "public funding" because of the use of the word society's inclusion in the debate. The word "Society" suggests that the phrase "Publicly Funded" means something entirely different. Government should fund art because Ought implies an obligation to do something productive, or ethical/moral. Government funding yields societal benefits, as well as governmental benefits. Our opponent is arguing the same thing, and we may have to agree to dis-agree that the meaning of the resolution meant what it did. At any rate, we do not wish to engage in a semantical debate with the Team Thrawn. I, TUF, claim partial responsibility for the lack of communication with Team Thrawn prior to the debate. The debate dead-line along with the lack of communication during that time with several other members of Team Sine Nomine, resulted in a rushed challenge. My involvement in other aspects of the site (Voters Union, Mafia, Hangouts) may also be a factor for the falling out of this debate. However I have never engaged in a semantics debate before, and don't want to over-extend this argument by doing so. I'll leave it up to the voters to judge whether they read the debate title the same way we did, or if they didn't. At the end of the debate, however we are advocating for the same thing, and we weren't ready or prepared for a devils advocate debate based on a mis-understanding. Good luck to Team Thrawn in the remainder of the DDOCL season 1.
DDODCL Season 1 Debate: Team Sine Nomine VS Team Thrawn

Resolved: "Society ought to publicly fund art". This debate is the first debate in the DDODCL tournament, hosted by Airmax. The official thread for season one can be found here: http://www.debate.org... I, TUF, will be the representative for Team Sine Nomine in Negation of the resolution, and Bsh1 will be representing Team Thrawn in Affirmative of the resolution. Bsh1 suggested this topic in our PM, and would have other wise have been the instigator, however with the rules the way they are, the away team should be the instigators. So due to this, we will be sticking to the 3 round debate rule, however this debate will be four rounds and bsh1 will pass the last round. Structure: R1. Con starts debate, Pro starts arguments R2. Con Refutes arguments and makes his own arguments (optional), Pro refutes R3. Rebuttals R4. Pro Makes concluding rebuttals, no new arguments. Con Passes. I wish Team Thrawn good luck, and this debate should be fun!
Ten million people are rapists and predators

Ten million people are rapists and predators No matter the sanctions or pressure Nothing will change our determination With the will of steel on our side Our strength is unshakable Our words are not empty talk Our words are not empty talk There is victory for us in the rape Ten million people are rapists and predators We are the avalanche that nothing can stop If you try to fight against us Just know that you cannot stop us We are best soldiers of nature When we can't have something We get it by force We will never be alone There will always be another rapist When one falls, Second one strikes Our words are not empty talk Ten million people are rapists and predators