BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state

1) 70% - 30% argument “The Pro thinks that since 70% of all high school students get into college, then 30% must not get into college ONLY because it is too expensive” If you read my argument, I stated that the expense is a “major” factor in students not attending college, not the only factor. And the statistics for the lower income households indicates this to be true. If upper income households have an 84% enrollment rate and lower income is 55%, then affordability is a significant factor. In addition, the 70% of those who enroll in college don’t all graduate. The United States has only a 38% graduation rate. Do you know what the most common reason for not graduating is? Money. “ Nearly two-thirds of those who enroll at a community or for-profit college ultimately do not earn a degree within six years, he said, adding that about one-third of students at public and private four-year universities do not earn a degree. He attributed these graduation rates to a number of factors, emphasizing that finances often determine whether or not somebody graduates.” So you can get into college, but cannot afford to stay in to graduate. A financial problem. http://dukechronicle.com... 2) Economy related to college degree During a recession companies do fire a lot of people, but not haphazardly. Companies carefully choose who they keep and who they let go. Those who bring less value to the company are first to go because when the economy turns around, they are the easiest to replace. According to an article in The Huffington Post on 2/7/2012, “job seekers without a college degree are having serious difficulty finding work in the current market, and the unemployment rate for high school graduates is more than twice that of college grads” http://www.huffingtonpost.com... “Yes there is favoritism for college degrees when companies are HIRING people” Take a look around in this slow recovery, more people are being hired that have college degrees than not. So, it is important that you have a college education to either maintain your current job or get hired following a layoff or firing due to the economy. 3) Costs Granted, $455 billion is a large number. However, I never said I would fund all colleges and students around the country, just state schools. This amounts to about 7.7 million students ~ 1/3 of the 18.2 million total. http://nces.ed.gov... Thus, Con’s $455 billion would be cut to about $152 billion. Nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but not nearly the original figure. Taking this further, the tax increase would also be cut to 1/3 its original estimate or about 4.5%. This would take the 35% tax rate to 40%. In conclusion, the cost of a college education has grown to the point that even if you are among the lucky 70% that get enrolled, you have a best a 50-50 chance of graduating simply due to financial reasons. This needs to change, and one way to do this is to fund state colleges to make them free.
State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state

“70% of high school graduates get into a college or a university even though many of them cant afford it.” So then according to you, 30% of high school students who cannot attend college because of the costs is acceptable? For me, it is not. Also, your 70% of high school graduates getting into college is skewed. As is indicated from the National Center for Educational Statistics in 2011, it is the higher income families that are able to afford to send their children to college. “Most recently, in 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate of high school completers from low-income families was 55 percent, 29 percentage points lower than the rate of high school completers from high-income families (84 percent).” http://nces.ed.gov... So, lower-middle to lower- income families are much less likely to be able to get into college. As this is based on income, it is a logical conclusion that the cost of a college education is a major factor in the decision to attend. The idea is to increase the number of students attending college by spreading out the costs among the many. I made the point "One reason for unemployment is because most of the businesses are looking for employees with specific skills and talents, most of which can only be obtained through an college education." To which you countered that “another reason that unemployment happens is because at one point the economy was really sh*tty and jobs started disappearing and people who had college educations are getting fired” Well those without college degrees are not getting hired as demonstrated by the unemployment rates from January, 2012 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for those without a college education is 9.5% while the unemployment rate for college educated workers is 4.4%. This clearly demonstrates that businesses are looking for potential employees with college degrees. There clearly is a “favoritism” for those with college degrees. In this economy and moving into the future, a college education is not a luxury, but a necessity. As such, it should not be out of reach to 30% of our graduating high school students. http://www.bls.gov... My comment regarding the billions of dollars given to oil companies stems from the fact that government is not managing our tax money as well as can be done. This is one example of money that can be made available to fund a college tuition program. Yes there would be tax increases of some sort, but far from the 60% rate Con suggested. Again, I don’t have the specifics of a program to fund this. My argument is that the current system denies a college education to potential students because of the cost. A fair process to generate the necessary funding can be developed and implemented providing the lower income students with the opportunity to attend. The current system is not working as it should and needs to be adjusted to open the opportunities of higher education to those who currently cannot afford it.
It's time to restrict the supply of junk food to the obese

I have tried in past debates to suggest ways to prevent the obese from obtaining junk food from downscale restaurant chains such as McDonald's; KFC and Burger King: everything from making it illegal for these restaurants to serve them in the same way as it is illegal for bars to serve alcohol to drunks; all the way through to obliging fast food restaurants to make their entrances narrower to stop grossly overweight people from entering the premises in the first place. However, I failed to overwhelmingly convince the voters of the undoubted merits of these schemes, so here I am again with my latest (and best) solution yet: I propose that under future government legislation customers at fast food restaurants will order their food at the counter as normal but instead of the server handing them their order they will, instead, place their tray of food and drinks on a conveyor belt that will run a loop around the restaurant back into the kitchen. This done, the customer will "chase" his order round the room rather like greyhounds chase a rabbit round a track. (Play YouTube clip #1) However, to avoid spilling the food and drinks, the conveyor belt will have to travel quite slowly which would thus enable even the most fat and wheezy of slobberchops to grab their order so the enclosed "track" alongside the conveyor belt will need to be modified in order to slow the chasing customer down. To achieve this, I not only propose conventional obstacles such as a wall to climb over, a cargo net to crawl under and a water-filled pit to jump over but also a moving sidewalk on an incline that customers will have to run up in the opposite direction to travel. (Play YouTube clip #2 in reverse) This will mean that fit customers will still be able to collect their food relatively easily but overweight customers will have to physically exert themselves in a way they are unused to and this will result in one of the following three outcomes: 1 – They will catch their food having burned off lots of calories – which would be good thing. 2 – They will fail to catch their food and watch it disappear back into the kitchen and thus go without their fix of grease and stodge – which would be a good thing. 3 – They will patronise alternative establishments that only sell healthy food until they have lost enough weight to catch their orders at junk food restaurants – which would be good thing. This plan could protect millions of grossly overweight people from themselves and I, therefore, duly commend it to the House. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Water is bad 4 u

Do you know how many people choke on water every ten seconds? One. And that's way too many. We need to fix this. This is a serious problem that is nationally unrecognized. People need to be aware of water and its hazardous effects on the human throat. People also need to learn how to correctly swallow water. I am here to debate whether or not water should be sold in schools, sporting events, or even in grocery stores. I think we would be safer if we didn't even have oceans.
January/February LD Debate Resolved

The exact wording of the resolved is: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Seeing that I need more practice with my cases I would be really appreciative of all forms of criticism good or bad. I will be Aff for this topic. This round will be in LD debate format Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Aff case, Neg case/rebuttal Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Rebuttals Round 5- Closing statements Your case should consist of Framework whether it be Value/Value Criterion or Burden. Contentions/Claims. Warrants/Cards. Impacts etc. I look forward to a great debate round whoever accepts ^.^
The Kreimann argument regarding the non-existence of a Christian god is sound

Kreimann argument, roughly paraphrased: Gods in the past were worshiped with as much fervor and belief as the modern Judaic god, but are now dismissed by the general population as myths. Therefore, the Judaic god can be dismissed as a myth as well. This argument is fallacious and can be debunked. That is what we will be debating--whether this argument can be accepted as valid--not the existence or non-existence of a Christian god. The thrust of this proof is that no one worships the deities of historical Egypt, Greece, Rome, Aztec, or any other culture. We know that these deities are imaginary myths, the Kreimann argument asserts, because no one worships them anymore. However, this is utterly fallacious! It is argumentum ad populum--using the popularity of something to determine its truth value. Really, that's how this argument claims that these deities never existed. If no one worships them anymore, then they must be imaginary. Some actual words of a proponent: ". . . we know with complete certainty today that the Egyptian gods were imaginary. We don't build pyramids anymore and we do not mummify our leaders. " "Yet we know with complete certainty that these gods were imaginary because no one worships Zeus any more." "If the Aztec gods were real, we would still be offering sacrifices to them." (1) By the same logic that no believers = nonexistent/false, many believers = existent/true. However, that doesn't apply, by their logic. In fact, the same oft-quoted proponent goes on to say that "The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless"--which means that the high Christian population holds no weight in determining the religion's truth value. However, this completely contradicts the point that they are trying to make. They connected lack of continuing worship to the existence of a deity, then proceed to say that the number of worshipers is meaningless. This is a serious contradiction. The flow of the argument is incoherent: 1. Many, many historical gods have no worshipers today. 2. No worshipers means that the god doesn't exist, otherwise it would still command worship. 3. Millions of people worship the God of the Bible and Jesus, but this number of worshipers is irrelevant to the existence of a god. 4. Therefore, God is imaginary. (1): http://godisimaginary.com...
God meant he created the earth in 24 hour days.

I believe God meant he created the earth in 24 hour days. Before Con accepts, con believes that God meant he created the earth not in 24 hour periods but a longer period of time. How this debate will go down. Round 1: Con's acceptance Round 2: Pro's Arguments and Con's rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal of Rebuttals Round 4: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MUST READ RULES: 1. This is not a debate about if the earth was created 6 days, this is a debate in if God meant 24 hour time periods. Don't debate me on that. 2. Don't accept if you think the bible is NOT a legit form of evidence. 3. Must have evidence to back up your claims. 4. No excuses or lies. 5. I had a debate on this topic before. Use the Hebrew Bible for your evidence and not other bibles.
God meant he created the earth in 24 hour days.

1. Did I ever say echad yom in my first argument? NO, so all of those verses prove nothing because those all mean DAYS and I referred to the word DAY. I would agree that echad yom would be a longer period of time because it refers to multiple days. Nowhere does it say echad yom in ANY of those verses. Echad yom means "together day" but the correct way to use it is "ehad yom" which means a one day. Go on google translate and do it if you don't believe me. Despite all of that I am still going to prove your concept of those verses wrong. In 1 Samuel you stated that "David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours." That's right, he meant one day, I will die, as in a day in the future. In Daniel 11:20, it never says ehad yom, it says "u be ya mim" which means DAYS not DAY. Also, New Living Translation states, "In a few years" making this statement irrelevant. In Zechariah 14:7-8, it never says ehad yom. Plus, in that chapter, they talk about the prophecies about Jesus' death and resurrection. Same with Hosea 6:2. 2. Tell me where it says the 7th day continues into the present. Hebrew 4:4 doesn't say yom, but instead says hebdomes, which means "the seventh [day]" 3. Genesis 1:1, In the BEGINNING, God created the heavens and the earth. It says nowhere the first day, it only states the beginning. You also stated that it mentions all the raw materials to make stars, planets, etc. But you never said they MADE the sun on the first day. Even though I proved this argument wrong in the first sentence, I would like for you to provide evidence that those materials made the Sun and planets on the First Day. 4. Tell me where it says that this should apply to others. This only applies to this and cannot apply it to another without concrete evidence. 5. Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day. "First off, days and nights were clearly created on the fourth day." Completely wrong. 6. I agree with the first argument but nowhere in that verse says "day." But I know this isn't your main argument but this doesn't prove that the evening and morning referred to in Genesis is not legit evening and morning. The last verse refers to many evenings and morning. I know this doesn't cover everything but I tried to cover most of it. I didn't have much time write this rebuttal. :)
Evolution

mock for this debate. However, he did not define the resolution in detail in either the resolution or his original arguments-he simply said evolution in general did hot exist. All my opponent has done is assert that God created the Universe, and give no proof or even arguments that evolution does not exist. However, I will be nice to my opponent by presenting final arguments. I. Macroevolution Is Basically the Same Thing My opponent claims that microevolution exists, but not macroevolution. I would like to ask one thing: what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter? "You can find them [the two different evolutions] in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don"t pay attention to them. Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. .. Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. "[1] II. Evidence In Species "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas. "[2] Out of Species "Goldschmidt has suggested that the adaptive radiation of the cichlids of Lake Victoria has been driven by a combination of adaptation to a myriad of trophic niches, combined with sexual selection resulting from female choice (Goldschmidt, 1998). "[2] I encourage my opponent to read source 2 for more evidence. Conclusion My opponent has made no proven-or even relevant-arguments arguing against evolution. He has made only irrelevant arguments. He has made contradictions (believing in Micro, but not Macro Evolution and citing two different definitions of Macroevolution (his fake and the real one he sourced)). The resolution is affirmed. " Sources: [1]:". http://atheism.about.com... [2]:". http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
Evolution

However, I believe that my opponent misunderstood the intent of the debate. My opponent is debating an entirely different facet of Evolution which I am not opposed to. This is called "micro evolution" Here is an example of micro evolution: "House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of micro evolution — evolution on a small scale. " (. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) This type of "evolution" exists and is unarguable. Things change. Ants build new nests. Animals become acclimated to their current situation. This is the way of the world. The argument I presented was arguing against the theory of macro evolution: "Macro evolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. " (. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) Macro evolution is the evolution that claims that the universe came from one gigantic explosion, and macro evolution is the evolution that is not true. For a full explanation of this, please visit my first argument. If my opponent would like to debate the real topic of this round, he may do so in the last argument of the round, or we may begin another round on even footing. As it stands now, my arguments are unrefuted.
Evolution

mock for presenting his arguments. I. The Law of Inertia-Refutation My opponent is assuming that there is nothing driving evolution, therefore it must not exist. However, there are many things, mainly environmental changes, "One of the key mechanisms of evolution, natural selection, causes organisms to evolve in response to a changing environment. "[1] Environmental changes force living things to adapt to the environment, "Some individuals will have characteristics that make them well adapted to their environment whereas others will have characteristics that make them less adapted to their environment. The better adapted individuals are the ones that are more likely to survive and produce offspring while the less adapted ones are more likely to die. "[2] So, why is it that more adaptive creatures survive? There are a myriad of examples to support this, "Canadian squirrels are evolving to take advantage of an earlier spring and are breeding sooner, which allows them to hoard more pinecones for winter survival and next year's reproduction. Squirrels with genes for earlier breeding are more successful than squirrels with genes for later breeding. "[1] "The Peppered Moth is another example of evolution in response to environmental change. There are two types of these moths, one species has a light colour while the other one is darker. When Britain begun industrialising, the soot from the factories would land on trees and so the darker moths then had an advantage over the light ones as they could easily hide from predators. Before the soot, both types of moths were eaten by predators however now that the darker ones were able to hide the lighter ones got eaten more often. The population of the darker moths rapidly increased while that of the lighter ones rapidly decreased until only the dark moths were left. All the lighter moths were less adapted to the environmental change and so they could no longer survive in that new environment. "[2] "One North American mosquito species has evolved to take advantage of longer summers to gather resources while the weather is good. Mosquitoes with genes that allow them to wait longer before going dormant for the winter are more successful than mosquitoes that go dormant earlier. "[1] So, evolution exists in many ways. II. The Fact of Evolution-Presentation Evolution is a fact. "This fact is based on the recorded and published observations of thousands of scientist over the past 200+ years. It is evidence that is clearly written in the geological and biological record. .. "The "theory" that evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so overwhelmingly documented that it is as close to a fact as you can get in science. Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. "[3] Sources: [1]:". http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [2]:". http://www.ibguides.com... [3]:". http://chem.tufts.edu...
Evolution

99.85% of earth and life scientists in the US today believe in the theory of Evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org...) there are many arguments against Evolution (and they are all sufficient to disprove its validity), but in this debate round, I would like to confine it to one main point: Nothing will change unless something outside it acts upon it. a.k.a., the law of Inertia) Thus, the theory that the big bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago does not bear any weight. Who lit the fuse? Who planted the dynamite? The law of inertia states that an object will not shift unless acted upon by an outside force. Thus, an inanimate object would not spontaneously blow up. But let's just say that it did. Then what is the likelihood that the an entire universe erupted from...an impersonal explosion??? There are trillions and trillions of stars in the Milky Way. There are more in Andromeda. And in a long exposure photograph taken by the Hubble Telescope several years ago, billions of such galaxies were recegonized. What is the probability that trillions of galxies would evolve out of...nothing? The answer is absoutely none. The only explanation for the existence of the universe is a being, bigger and more powerful than any other person. A being that existed forever and ever and created EVERYTHING, including the law of inertia. Trying to prove evolution through science does not work. An explosion cannot live outside the closed system that was created by a being who lives outside this closed system. An explosion is not a God. God, however, is an explosion. A universe. Something much bigger and wilder than an explosion. Something much more dangerous than an explosion. But also an explosion that lives outside the closed system and has the power to create one. He has. We are in it. We try to explain it with things inside this system but things inside this system have no power to create a system they are contained in.