BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School uniforms

Rebuttals: "Well buddy, when you rebuttal you are not supposed to be disrespectful or you will lose votes. " This is not a valid rebuttal, you did not properly address my argument. "It tells people that you don't care for hygiene and it does show you are lazy because everyone knows you have more clothes and so do you. If you are just going to choose the same clothes over and over it will bother your surroundings. " It will not bother your surroundings, and your first sentence makes no sense. "I agree with my opponent when she said: "With uniforms, it would be easier to understand if a child is in your school or not. Let's say you go on a field trip and your class splits up into 2 groups. Later it will be easier to find the other group because they are easily distinguished by their uniforms. " But many schools use the same uniforms so one of the kids can wonder off and go into another school group and the teacher won't notice because that student has the same uniform. " This is not an argument, this is another rebuttal. Also, you have agreed with me. Arguments: I would like to extend all my previous arguments. I would also like to say that Con has had no sources of proof. They have not displayed any sources, or addressed any of my arguments until round 4.
School uniforms

With uniforms, you don't follow your peers, you follow the rules. With uniforms you learn how to listen to rules. Without uniforms, you would buy what your peers buy, if you actually read my arguments." Well buddy, when you rebuttal you are not supposed to be disrespectful or you will lose votes. "Picking the same clothes does not make you lazy." It tells people that you don't care for hygiene and it does show you are lazy because everyone knows you have more clothes and so do you. If you are just going to choose the same clothes over and over it will bother your surroundings. Argument: I agree with my opponent when she said: "With uniforms, it would be easier to understand if a child is in your school or not. Let's say you go on a field trip and your class splits up into 2 groups. Later it will be easier to find the other group because they are easily distinguished by their uniforms." But many schools use the same uniforms so one of the kids can wonder off and go into another school group and the teacher won't notice because that student has the same uniform.
School uniforms

Rebuttals: "When you get out of school you won't have uniform and then you will need to pick the clothes you want to wear. " When you get out of school you go home. Do you really chose a specific outfit to sit on the couch with? "People will just be lazy and pick the same clothes. " Picking the same clothes does not make you lazy. "Also, children do need to be different from their surroundings. " Not always, being the same can represent unity. "They need to learn how to be themselves and not follow their peers. " With uniforms, you don't follow your peers, you follow the rules. With uniforms you learn how to listen to rules. Without uniforms, you would buy what your peers buy, if you actually read my arguments. Arguments: With uniforms, it would be easier to understand if a child is in your school or not. Let's say you go on a field trip and your class splits up into 2 groups. Later it will be easier to find the other group because they are easily distinguished by their uniforms. Con has not addressed ANY of my arguments. I have rendered ALL of her arguments, and created new firm ones. Con has repeated the same main argument with no supporting evidence: Kids need to express themselves.
School uniforms

Rebuttals: "Uniqueness should be shown and not hidden. Everyone needs to be themselves and not care what everyone else thinks of them. I have no school uniform and everyone loves being themselves. It is how we get to know each other." You don't need clothing to express your individuality. There are many other ways, like through art. Also, you can show your individuality out of school. Arguments: Since kids won't have to choose clothes in the morning, they would be able to get ready faster. This would allow in more sleep, which is better for learning. [1] In having uniforms, children's grades would improve because of the bigger amount of sleep they would achieve. Also, the amount of peer pressure in school would diminish. People would not have to worry about having specific brands to be superior to others. And lastly, you could remove clothing related to gangs. This would offer a safer environment in school. In conclusion, uniforms would better school, and the students learning in it. source: 1.http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu... I would like to remind people that this a quick debate, so I will have short arguments.
School uniforms

Sigh, my opponent does not comprehend debate etiquette. I said first round acceptance, which means first round no arguments are to be presented, you must only write if you accept the challenge or not. Now you have more debate rounds then me, nevertheless I will continue. Rebuttals: "School Uniforms aren't the best because kids can not show their uniqueness, and their differences from everyone else." In doing so, people will not get teased for being different. Arguments: First of all, we all understand what school uniforms are. So now I will explain how these school uniforms can better a school. In using school uniforms, you are preventing bullying. In the U.K. over 50% of school girls bullied are because of their appearance. [1] Appearance include clothing. So if all people in a school were to wear uniforms, it would prevent the amount of bullying significantly because everyone is wearing the same thing. You can't bully someone because of their clothes if you are wearing the same ones. Secondly, it would prevent inappropriate clothing in the school. Schools have rules, and sometimes these rules are broken. Some people could go against the clothing requirements, and wear inappropriate clothing to school, exposing skin. With uniforms, you are required to wear them, eliminating the possibility of inappropriate clothing. Thirdly, it would be cheaper to have 1 piece of clothing than to buy many. With a uniform, you would buy less clothing. IN doing so, you are helping low income families. Since I am aware of con's short argument, I decided to make mine short as well. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Gun Rights

My condolences.. First off i do not respect someone that uses that kind of language. I I completely agree that guns can be used for bad things, but how do you know those guns were purchased from the U.S. legally? Because if there are no gun rights that basically means that you aren't allowed to purchase or have a gun in the U.S. Now say that owning a gun(s) and the purchase of guns were banned and illegal in the United States. Do you think criminals are going to say: "oh man now we can't buy guns and do illegal stuff." NO. There is no actual proof that at least half the guns used in criminal activity were purchased in the U.S. Most criminals purchase their guns illegally. So going back to saying that guns were banned in the U.S. What's gonna happen when criminals and police are the only ones with guns? The killing rate will increase hugely. I am going to throw a few facts out, wether you believe it or not. Guns are used 6,850 times a day, that means that every year, guns are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. So we are just gonna take guns away from women and let them get raped/ sexually abused??? Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. That's a lot of times. There goes 0.8% of our population just for that". Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award. Interesting, isn't it? I could go on and on with facts, but in my mind these facts show why gun rights are good. Now i do agree though that fully-auto guns are not at all needed. What would happen if we weren't allowed to have guns and someone broke into your house and you weren't able to defend yourself, possibly leading to getting killed or robbed of anything. I just don't think that you understand that most guns used by criminals aren't bought in the U.S. legally. Taking away guns will do nothing but take away our defenses".. Why was your brother in a gang? Aren't they the ones that are killing people? Please define "peaceful protesting." Because the only instance I've seen a police officer shoot someone at a protest was because they had Molotov cocktails, and were threatening the safety of the officers. In my mind taking guns away from people never does any good, since there will never be a way to control illegal sales of guns.
Gun Rights

First off I would like to start with this image http://assets.diylol.com... Now gun rights are stupid. My mother was shot on the street when I was 4 because some low life wanted her purse. My father was shot in a similar situation 16 months later. My older brother was shot by a gang because they thought he was someone else and my younger brother was shot last year by a cop while he was peacefully protesting. Guns are nothing but trouble, guns have taken my whole family away from me.
Politics should be kept away from faith

Before I start: Don't be confused with faith and religion, they are two different ideals. _______________________ The link between a faithful politician and the feelings of a particular religious group appears hazy. Let me remind you, this is my opponent's sole argument. Certaintly, you don't want to vote on an affirmative stance that rests upon an incoherent advocacy. In response, I purpose the following resolution: Politicians ought NOT be kept away from thier faith. Faith will be defined as confidence or trust in a person or thing. Do you want a politician that votes on policies despite her trust in it? Would you like for a politician to vote on RISKY foriegn policies? Certaintly you do not. Without faithful politicians, we wouldn't have America because no one would invest in a nation, unless they were CONFIDENT they were making the right decision. My opponent wants a mindless robot as a politician, she wants someone who will vote off of random thoughts, as opposed to confidence and trust in something. I for one disagree, I think politician ought to use thier faith, to a certain extent, of course. My opponent values absolutely NO faith, but I will take a risk, and say, "a little faith is all it take to create something great". With that said, I have faith that you will vote for me. -Protagoras of Abdera
Spiritual healing and distant healing actually work

Daniel J. Benor, MD wrote an article to review 61 studies on distant healing. In this article he goes over three studies in particular; the first conducted by Randolph Byrd. He conducted the experiment on 393 patients in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CCU) of the 393 192 were in the experimental group, and 201 in the control group. This was Byrd's finding, "Significantly fewer patients in the prayer group required intubation;ventilation (p < 0.002) or antibiotics (p < 0.005), had cardiopulmonary arrests (p < 0.02), developed pneumonia (p < 0.03) or required diuretics (p < 0.05)." There is a possibility that friends and family of people in the control group were praying for them, so that would make the difference smaller and increase the results of the control group. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William S. Harris and colleagues conducted the same experiment at a different CCU, and increased the numbers of each group (466 in experimental, and 524 in control. They also created scales to measure how well a person was doing. William S. Harris found that, "On both the weighted and unweighted scales, the treated group showed significantly greater improvements (both at p < 0.04)." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Sicher, and Elizabeth Targ did the same type of study but on AIDS patients. These people along with prayers also received standard medical treatment. Fred Sicher and Elizabeth Targ found that, "At six months following the initial assessment, those sent distant healing had significantly fewer AIDS-related illnesses (p < 0.04) and lower severity of illnesses (p < 0.02). Visits to doctors were less frequent (p < 0.01), as were hospitalizations (p < 0.04), and days in hospital (p < 0.04). Mood was assessed on the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Again there was significantly more improvement in the prayer group (p < 0.02)."
Spiritual healing and distant healing actually work

Thank you for this debate sammyc. I'll start off with a few definitions and conditions of my own that I'm sure you'll agree with. First, for healing to be healing, quite simply, it must help. This agrees with your definition. Second, if a process causes more physical harm to a person than benefits, that person is not being healed. This also logically makes sense; you don't heal a person by hurting them more than you help them. (and yes, it should be more than him or her, but that takes forever). Third: for a technique to be accepted as genuine, its effects must be at least measurably greater than those of a placebo. This is also readily apparent; it has been demonstrated that the body will heal itself more if it thinks it is being healed, and so the effect of a technique must be shown to be greater than that of the body's own healing process. Now, the largest and seemingly most ethically conducted study that I could find on this topic is one that was conducted over a 10 year period on 1,802 patients receiving heart surgery. This was to ensure comparability between subjects. Patients were divided into three groups, two were prayed for and one was not. Of the two being prayed for, one group was informed that they were being prayed for, while the other was not. The group not informed that they were being prayed for showed no improvement over the group not prayed for. However, the group told that they were being prayed for actually had more complications after surgery than the other two groups. Clearly, this alone disproves any positive effect from prayer, since a single blind trial showed no effect and a non-blinded trial, which should at least have displayed a placebo effect if prayer/distance healing was effective, actually harmed patients. Finally, the source of much of the funding for the study was the Templeton Foundation, which is an extremely religion-friendly organization, so there is clearly no bias in the results due to a desire to appease the funders of the study. Now, as for non-prayer spiritual/distant healing: The study alone shows a null or negative correlation between prayer and healing. I in this case have taken prayer to be the same as spiritual or distant healing, in that prayer for one's recovery is a direct and purposeful attempt at intervention via focused intention. If you believe this is not the case, feel free to debate me on it, but as it stands they appear to me to be the same thing or at least the same general idea. Now, as I have provided clear evidence that prayer, spiritual, or distant healing do not work, there is a large burden of proof placed on Pro to demonstrate that his claims are true. I must simply state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since the burden of proof is on Pro anyway to validate his claims, he now has an additional hurdle in that there is evidence against his claim, rather than simply no evidence for his claim.
Spiritual healing and distant healing actually work

I'm going to start off with an explanation of the topic. It is that spiritual healing and distant healing like from a medicine man, or a group prayer can actually help people. The definition of spiritual healing I am using for this debate is "systematic, purposeful intervention by one or more persons aiming to help another living being (person, animal, plant or other living system) by means of focused intention, hand contact, or passes to improve their condition." -Daniel J. Benor, MD Distant healing is, "healing that is deliberately sent by one or more healers as an intent, wish, meditation, or prayer to a healee who may be in the healers' presence or may be far away." - Daniel J. Benor, MD
population control

First off, I would like to turn to John Steinbeck in his book "The Grapes of Wrath", he states that although population can be controlled, it is imminent either way that the world will become overpopulated. Therefore, there is no point in population control. Now to my second point, if you look around the world today, there is plenty of land for people to flourish, the only thing that is segregating peoples, is race and patriotism. Chinese people live in China, Americans live in America, and for some strange reason, Smurfs live in Oompa Loompa Land? Yes, I added that in there because John Steinbeck from his earlier book stated that same thing. Because the oompa loompas and the smurfs got along well, they were able to live peacefully TOGETHER. We have 1 empty continent, Russia, despite its somewhat large population, is practically empty, Greenland has a population less of that of England. When we develop more technology, we will be able to live anywhere in the world. Now for the food shortage, in recent times, the Aeronautics and Space Administration have been reseaching how to farm, on the sea. Companies in India have been farming for more than 50 years and have not experienced a food shortage since WWII. More than 50 years ago. www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/farming_the_sea.pdf Therefore, I urge a CON Ballot
population control

1) My idea of population control is to fix growth though education. you teach the dangers to our kids about over populating. if you have to many one animal in the wild it clasps. even thow I wont be alive in 200 years I know someone will and ever mistake we make will hurt them down the line. and growth until claps isn't a good idea. but if the situation got bad enough guess who would be forced to step in (like china) the government because the people cant be responsible. I have seen many people have more kids then just two every extra child after two kids is population growth. 2) 272,690,813 July 1, 1999 303,824,640 is the current population the population looks like its growing to me 3) supply is resources and demand is a person. you can never have more persons then supply are one day it wont work I ask u how is the current way right? ? if I'm wrong improve my logic
population control

in my arguments I am not gating my information off of any one source (books, tv, etc.) I am using only the information I have seen from my life I believe, we should have population control and it needs to be in place before we end up in china's current condition. If we control growth, we can have a more stable life and more peaceful since we can have the time to design an area for living space, instead of this random clutter. we can also control our resources more effectively since we would know how much most people also dont like to be crowded conditons if I'm wrong improve my logic
Roblox is horrible, and is nothing compared to minecraft.

My most sincere apologies for forfeiting the previous round. I was on a small vacation. By physics, i was referring to laws of motion, gravity etc. While Minecraft can allow you to fall any height if you fall into deep enough water, Roblox has horrid motion, as though on ice skates. Minecraft does have light. torches, glowstone, even lava. In response to maturity, you must have not been on a decent server. Many servers have 6 year olds yes. However, many servers have a whitelist the requires you to be of a certain age. Sound, roblox has a very annoying soundtrack. Minecraft, soothing. Minecraft has more "atoms" as it has more textures, more blocks, etc. Roblox is free, yes, but its another one of those pay to win games. you pay, and get more in game money, to get VIP, or skins, etc. Roblox may have adults, but so does Minecraft. The latter more commonly. Spammers, consider finding a server with an anti spam plugin.
Roblox is horrible, and is nothing compared to minecraft.

Your debate: Roblox is worse than minecraft in (almost) every single way. Minecraft has much better physics, better graphics, more mature people (on average) and has much more to offer. ---- Minecraft is directed at a certain age group, while Roblox isn't. Roblox is directed at many ages. Still, I don't play Roblox that often, but I like it more than Minecraft. Physics? Roblox has a lot of physics, which you probably haven't explored. Definition of Physics: The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms. Roblox has mechanics. You cannot feel heat in Minecraft or Roblox so that doesn't count. Roblox has light Roblox has many mini-games, in which can have radiation, Minecraft does not have this unless you install some sort of mod. Sound? Roblox has it, sounds of blocks falling. Electricity? Yeah! The models can have electricity to run them. Magnets? Yeah, but you need to mod Minecraft to do so. Atoms? Well, considering they're not real in games, but yeah, to the characters they are made of atoms. Graphics? Minecraft is 32-bit, Minecraft could be 8-bit if they wanted to. Roblox is free... but what do you expect, it's free, but the games are very fun! Mature? Hah, when I've been on the servers it has been 9 year-old children... with bad grammar. Most of all they swear. No one spams on Roblox unless you use a strange hack, but it's very rare. No, Minecraft has spammers everywhere, spamming, "Come to our shop, selling heads for $5!" or different and rude things.
Promoting A Federal Drug Ban is not in accordance with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church

My opponent seems to have forfeited. I'm disappointed; nevertheless, I will build on my defense of the resolution.According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative." (1) I contend that a federal drug ban qualifies as excessive intervention by the state. Thus, promoting one is not in accordance with the teachings of the Roman Catholic ChurchI will wait patiently for Con's rebuttal.(1) CCC SEC. 1883
Promoting A Federal Drug Ban is not in accordance with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for accepting. :D The federal government, according to the Church, should not encroach on a person's freedom, which includes that of using drugs: "[M]en should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. [...] [C]onstitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person [...]" (1) (1) DIGNITATIS HUMANAE