BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should schools have a Uniform

School uniforms should happen because schools can be identified due to the uniforms Wearing uniforms enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit. A 2007 study from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom found that uniforms "often directly contributed to a feeling of school pride." [45] Christopher P. Clouet, Superintendent of the New London, CT school district, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride." [3] A 2002 study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform "reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group." [33] Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Centre for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, stated that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of belonging." [31] A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that after uniforms were introduced, "Teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... Throughout the school" and said "students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform." [20] http://school-uniforms.procon.org...
The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Good Luck! Resolve: The XXII amendment of the U. S. Constitution should be repealed. This Amendment sets term limits for election to the office of the President of the United States. For full text follow this link. (1) C1: Redundant/limits: This Amendment’s function is largely redundant. Natural “Term limits” exist in a Democratic Republic like the U. S. They are called elections. Setting a term limit mitigates the natural function of elections. The people should have the power to determine if a politician has served enough terms as President. If the people feel this is the case. They could simple vote that politician out of office. This leaves the only unique function of this amendment to limit the choice of the people. I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of President through voting. C2: The Best Person for the job: The Constitution of the United States lays the duties of the executive branch of government on a single person, the President of the United States of America. Being President of the United States requires incredible skill and poise. Because of the high level of competence required of the office it is obvious that the people of the United States would want the best most qualified person available to fill this position. When Americans weigh who to vote into this office it is often discussed who is “qualified. ” Not surprising, often when people will not vote for a particular candidate, the reason given is lack of experience. It is not hard to understand why. A President who has experience is likely to be able to manage the tasks required better than one who has little or no experience. Imagine yourself a hiring manager and you are looking for an employee. In front of you a stack of resumes’. Are you going to look through and remove from consideration any and all candidates that have experience? Of course not! ? If anything, experience is a positive impact on who may be chosen. Before even allowing the American people to consider who the best person for the office may be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is clearly foolish. Conclusion: The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and allow Americans to decide for themselves. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution
Iron Man is better than The Dark Knight

hey , I'll accept your challenge . Well I like Iron Man but everyone knows his identity and who he is and also where he lives! I give you that Iron man/ Tony Stark does have a sense of humor and has more humanity than batman/bruce wayne but he didn't experience his parents murder. But batman would sacrifice his life even if people don't know who he is. Batman doesn't care about his life because once he puts that mask everything he does is altruistic . Iron man does his job expecting something good to happen or his life to be safe. They both have a pretty serious personality but tony stark sometimes makes the most worst things funny. Batman is better because he is a human being who understand that life isn't about receiving but to give to people. He does what he does knowing he'll die or get serious injured but loves doing it because he gets happiness in making his city a better place. Also while iron man has to be controlled by the government because the team he has gods and super soldiers and he is in a team he has no control over and destroys acres of land to just arrest one guy, ; batman doesn't he does his own thing in the darkness with the most minimal destruction and interferes with cops, and he doesn't give up his morals and ideals.
Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

I'll make this one short. Yes, there is a very huge possibility that this theory might be true, because it is very logical. And.. If Evolution really is "perfectly fit" as you said, why do you think we still call it as a theory? Why does scientists don't acknowledge this as a scientific fact? We are so much into this theory because this is only the scientific theory that is trying to tell where we humans came from. Of course, who wouldn't be curious? I don't really think that Evolution has proven itself with scientific evidence The minuscule gaps in this theory. are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Without this little things, we wouldn't know the whole picture of Evolution. What if these fossils just led to another specie instead of humans? Why did we suddenly evolve from a tall homo erectus to an extremely intelligent homo sapien? Why didn't we became extinct when we were a very dim witted ape? The world is changing much faster today, than billions of years ago, but why do we still look the same since the time of Jesus? And if there really was evolution, why does a chicken in present time the same chicken eons ago? There is a lot of possibilities and questions that haven't been answered in this theory that's why Evolution remains a theory. Yes some of us believe that this maybe true, like you and me. Though we can't prove it yet until we answer this questions.
Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

I agree that there are minuscule gaps. But how much more evidence is really needed? We have found hundreds of fossils, linking our current species back to ape-like ancestors. These fossils have been found in locations that perfectly fit this theory. I don't think it's fair to debunk evolution based on the premise of a "Well, do we REALLY know?" related question. Of course not. Nobody REALLY knows if there is or ever was a God. Are we REALLY alive? Who knows? This is treading on the realm of philosophy, which is not my intent. Evolution is a perfectly robust concept that I believe to be irrefutable. I acknowledge that there are slight gaps, but I do not think it is fair to use these gaps as argumentative fuel. I don't really mean to bring religion into this debate, but just as you said, "There really is NOTHING that can prove it." I'd like to agree and disagree with this. From a philosophical standpoint, you're right. We can never truly know. But when we piece together this scientific evidence to the best of humanity's abilities, we receive the theory of evolution. These simple fossils more logically support the theory of evolution than "Holy Bible" supports the theory of Creationism. We know where these fossils came from. We know how they link together, and we know how old they are. We know of their existence, and scientific evidence tells us that they are our ancestors. I would also like to refute your comment on dinosaurs. Our conception of a dinosaur skeleton may not be 100% correct, but I think it's safe to say that the model of a Tyrannosaurus-Rex was due to a link in discovered bones, and very thorough, accurate scientific inquiry. I do not doubt our vision of dinosaurs for the same reason I do not doubt evolution. Scientific discovery, and evidence has led us to many accurate, outstanding realizations throughout history. I would like to conclude my portion of this debate with one final statement: Evolution, although possessing very minuscule gaps, is a proven theory through scientific evidence.
Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

I agree when you said that the Theory of Evolution is a rational, practical and sound theory that Charles Darwin came up with. Though, there is something really incomplete. It's like a jigsaw puzzle of an elephant but there's one missing piece. And without that one missing piece, we cannot know if that elephant is just kicking a ball or killing a human. Same with Evolution. Even if it does sound logical, there really is NOTHING that can prove it. Even those fossils. Example is the dinosaurs, we just found its fossils but we don't know if dinosaurs really look like how we know them now. It's just merely scientific inference that led the scientist to say, "Ah! this dinosaurs MAYBE looks like this because the shape of the skull is that." And in the case of evolution Charles Darwin discovered the ape fossils and said "Ah! MAYBE we (the humans) came from apes because this fossil suggest something like that." But, where's the evidence? Why will you believe it if it ONLY SUGGESTS so? It's like forecasting that a big man will surely win a fistfight with a small man because he's got bigger muscles and a better body. So it suggests that he will most likely win. But what if the small man was a master of martial arts that could easily overtake a bigger man? See what I mean?
Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

I will admit partial defeat here. My new focus is the denial of evolution. I'll accept that it may not be a proven scientific fact, due to certain gaps, but there is no denying that it is an extremely rational, practical and sound theory. It is similar to Hawking's realization of the expansion of our universe. Galaxies have been proven to be moving away from each other at increasing speeds, proposing that they were closer together in the past. This of course can't physically be observed, but there's no denying it. Just as fossils have been found that can trace the current homo-sapien back to an earlier homo-erectus species, suggesting that a process of evolution occurred. Of course nobody can physically observe this. But common sense, and a logic thought process combined with sound scientific discovery and evidence is surely enough to get the job done.
Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

Evolution is not yet a "scientific fact." That's why it's still called the 'theory' of Evolution. Like the Big Bang and Aliens. it's a theory and not a fact. It hasn't been proven to be logically and scientifically true because there is a missing link that connects the apes from us, the humans. I personally think that it is too, hard to accept that we humans came from animals. I can't even imagine that my greatest ancestors were apes. If we look at it scientifically, our race MAYBE animals in the past, MAYBE we have evolved to be smart creatures in order to survive in this planet so that we could survive the rule of natural selection. It's all a MAYBE that's why I don't believe in it. Because Charles Darwin's theory all came from circumstantial evidence only. He saw fossils of apes, and pretty much made a story on how apes became humans from those fossils. That is the missing link in the theory of evolution, there is no solid direct evidence that would prove that we indeed came from apes. Here's an analogy: Imagine that you're a spectator on the criminal court, watching a trial of murder. (I'm not a Lawyer but I'm just using this as an analogy) A man working in a restaurant was stabbed. And one of the main suspects is his coworker, the chef. The prosecutor have 2 evidences. - The suspects fingerprints were seen on the murder weapon. A knife (Circumstantial Evidence) If this was his only evidence, then the prosecutor would lose the case and the judge verdict will be not guilty. Why? Because it's only circumstantial evidence. You think that the Chef murdered B because of the fingerprints. But what if he was framed? What if someone stole that knife that he uses in order to point him as the murderer? And the fact that he is a chef makes it normal for him to wield a knife. In this case, you need a stronger evidence that will really prove that the chef stabbed B. And that is direct evidence Evidence 2: CCTV Camera (Direct Evidence) - The CCTV Camera captured the chef stabbing the victim on the spot. This is what direct evidence is. Now there's no way that the chef could deny that he indeed stabbed the victim because there is a direct evidence that proves it. There's a witness. And this is the thing that the evolution theory lacks. It doesn't have a direct evidence. Plus no one could testify that he/she have seen an ape evolve to a human being right? Think about it.
Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

"I don't believe in evolution" is the single most rage inducing statement a person can make. Evolution, similar to global warming, the theory of special relativity, and pancakes has been scientifically proven through discovery of fossils, study of ecosystems, and more. Accept it. Evolution: The process by which different living organisms are subject to various genetic mutations, sometimes resulting in an increased chance of survival, and being passed down through generations - eliminating the previous species through natural selection.
THBT "Operation Unthinkable" should have been implemented and supported on July 1st, 1945

Well, that was quite the mouthful. Playing devil's advocate for this debate.Rules-Burdens on Pro-If you're intrested in the debate, be sure to comment below.-Be civil and follow the format.Format:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening CasesRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing Arguments/ Counter-rebuttalsTerms:This house: The Western Bloc; UK, America and their allies.Operation Unthinkable: "Operation Unthinkable was a code name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Both were ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe." (Source:https://en.wikipedia.org...)implemented: To be put to action.
THBT "Operation Unthinkable" should have been implemented and supported on July 1st, 1945

It's a shame my opponent couldn't post his argument so here's mine on why Operation unthinkable shouldn't have proceeded. 1)The allies were outnumbered: The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe. Meaning the allies would need a miracle to even make the first push through Germany. 2) Attrition: As Sun Tzu said "gThere is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."h This is even more true for the allies because with every passing day the Soviets reinforced their gains. It would be improbable for them to push them till Poland. The Soviets can hold and push the allies out of mainland Europe, the allies don't have the luxury of waiting. 3)The operation's success was purely based on luck: As said by the British staff committee the success of the operation was based on surprising the soviets. Which was pretty hard considering Stalin was a paranoid nut job who always knew the allies could betray them. 4)The Soviets could retreat, the allies could not: The territory proposed to be pushed into eastern Soviet land to counter all communist influence in Europe. This gave the soviets enough territory to back off if they needed to regroup. This was not a luxury that the allies had. They had to push fast and hard if they wanted to have any chance of winning. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... https://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II) https://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

Thanks to Pro for his comments. I don't think we have a misconception, I think we simply disagree based on our positions. Pro is operating under the presupposition that there is a transcendental mind out there, that sets the rules that guide human logic, and make it possible for us to have rational discourse, thus he believes that logic and LA are separate "entities". Logic is methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning. Our knowledge is interrelated by logic. It forms the fabric of the sciences by ensuring the consistency of the statements that compose them, as such, LA and logic itself is intertwined. LA do not, and can not exist independent of logic. We've already agreed that logic is a process of the human mind, therefore, LA are also a product of the human mind. LA are merely the rules that we recognize as governing rational discourse. Logic itself is not subjective. What is subjective is reasoning based on emotions, deductive reasoning, decision making, etc. LA don't normally (I didn't say never) come into play in those situations. Just because some human thought processes are subjective doesn't mean that we can't recognize that certain things need to be objectively true if we are to have a rational discussion about the real world. That, in itself, is enough to show that LA are from the human mind. Pro again makes the assertion that LA are timeless and changeless, but provides nothing to back up that assertion. He says, "Before humans existed LA were in place for uniformity of universe". A debate such as this requires evidence for such an assertion, without it, the assertion is totally unfounded. There is no reason to believe that LA pre-existed the human mind, and are thus timeless and changeless. In fact, it seems that LA, absent of a human mind to use them, would be totally wasted thus completely unneccessary. Pro's entire case hinges on acceptance of the pre-supposition of such a mind, without him providing a foundation for the existence of that timeless and changeless mind. I do not expect Pro to prove God's existence in this debate. However, if he's going to make the claim that LA originated in something other than the human mind, then he has to provide a plausible source, or show that the human mind is incapable of being the source. He has done neither, and in fact even admitted that LA are not a physical part of the universe. That leaves us with LA being concepts that exist within the human mind, and the human mind being the only possible source, by process of elimination. I'd like to thank Pro for initiating this debate, and his very good sportsmanship and conduct throughout. He took on a very difficult resolution though, and it's one that in my opinion, can't be affirmed. Thanks again to Pro, as well as the voters.
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

Thanks Con for Debate In past rounds there has been honest misunderstanding between us, philosophy 101 tells us to define terms to minimize accidental misconceptions but not enough rounds to clear it up. There is logic and there is LA. Inherently one can use logic, but people use logic subjectively. LA however is different it is not subjective. Humans have subjective nature, LA do not. Using the law of excluded middle we can deduct that LA or Humans cannot hold two attributes/qualities at the same time, LA cannot be both subjective and non subjective it will be one or the other. Due to the fact that LA have objective nature it cannot come from an origin that does not have such an attribute. This is why Humans having subjective nature is key, Con has stated again that its irrelevant to LA but I disagree. Example: A piece of metal we can determine a clue of where it came from and where it does NOT come from based on its attributes. Same with LA we know it posses attributes that humans do not. If Con wants to believe that if something originates from something and it doesn't need to posses the quality of the source, then with that line of logic he would need to account for non intelligence producing intelligence or something WITHOUT a mind creating something that DOES have a mind. Something with no personality creating something WITH personality. As I mentioned before. In a court if law they rely on consistency not subjectivity, if we use consistency in civil law, and in any rational discourse then we would use it with LA. I'm sure Con agrees LA is consistent but my point is that because LA IS consistent and absolute and humans are NOT then they are not the origin. If humans ARE the origin then we should contain the timeless and changeless attributes of LA but we don't. Con stated that was also irrelevant to LA, again I disagree. When I say timeless I refer to NOT applying to just the now, the past, or future but always. For example 2 plus 2 equals 4 will apply now, in the past, in future and always, whether or not there is a human mind to conceive it. My opponent stated we have no reason to believe such a notion is true if there is no mind to conceive it, is Con saying the validity 2 plus 2 will no longer equal 4 just because we cannot detect the thought of it? unbelief does not erase the reality of something being true. Before humans existed LA were in place for uniformity of universe. LA are timeless and humans are not, and LA are of the mind so it's fair to conclude that LA would come from a source that shares that same attribute of LA. Con says I must show 100% certainty of what this mind outside of humans is, but I say I only need to show reasonable certainty with supporting elements not 100% since even science isn't 100%. That's Besides the point, my resolution is to show LA did NOT come from humans not where it comes from. Either it came from humans or did not, no 3rd option, when one option is invalidated the other is validated.