BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Large Class sizes(pro) vs. smaller class sizes(con)

The reference which you cited refers primarily toward the primary education level. This is the section where I concede to smaller classes on the primary level. My primary belief is in larger class sizes on the secondary level. I notice that throughout your opening statements, they appear to appeal to the pathos quite a bit. (May I ask for a bit more concision in your points. At least remaining more topical.) "But it also cites several studies that clearly show that a smaller class size leads to better test scores and a lower drop out rate." "family as a pillar of society is crumbling" " A relationship with a teacher and student can be everything to a young child." Once again, I will concede to smaller classes on the primary level because I concede that the young mind can be greatly impacted by personal intervention from a teacher, however I still have my primary focus upon the secondary level of education to where the quality to the material is crucial. " Larger classes is just another way to cut cost and show these disadvantage children that we do not care about them. " I require additional detail about this statement. This looks like a straw man to an extent, but regardless, I need more specificity as to how a larger class shows that we do not care for disadvantaged children. "I want a complete overhaul of the education system." So do I, so do I, but for now lets stay on topic. If you want, we can try out other debates. I find them quite enjoyable, leaning about opposite viewpoints. "So some may see larger class sizes a reasonable cost effective way to "help schools." But all it will do will lower our already stagnating educational index and hurt those who need smaller classes." I need more details about some specific ways that a larger class sizes will lower the quality of education and harm individuals who need smaller classes. Overall, I feel that these arguments require additional concision and must be produced in a more topical manner in order for an effective debate to occur. In addition, numbers and date throughout the system have limited credibility because of how broad the education is. Problems in education are not just within the institutions itself, but with the very culture of the people. Thank you for your arguments.
Large Class sizes(pro) vs. smaller class sizes(con)

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this. We seem to have a issue from the get go on deciding on which is better: large or small classes. What is "better" can be different for each person. For me, a quality education is a right of all people and the cost to achieve this cannot slow progress. http://www.seattletimes.com... This is a nice article describing this issue in a sense of positives and negatives of smaller class size. But it also cites several studies that clearly show that a smaller class size leads to better test scores and a lower drop out rate. With a 50% divorce rate, family as a pillar of society is crumbling and the other pillars must bear the extra weight. One of the strongest and more diverse pillar is education. A relationship with a teacher and student can be everything to a young child. In urban environment where buildings are falling apart, books and computers are few, and teachers absent, we cannot leave these souls behind to poverty. Education is the great equalizer. Larger classes is just another way to cut cost and show these disadvantage children that we do not care about them. The cost is large. But we are suppose to be the greatest nation on the face of the Earth yet we still teach children in condemned buildings with no heat or running water. I want more than smaller classes. I want a complete overhaul of the education system. I want the federal government involved in cost to rebuild and renovate our public schools. We need more classes and teachers. We need computers and text books. We need to start caring for the most valuable people in the nation: our children. So some may see larger class sizes a reasonable cost effective way to "help schools." But all it will do will lower our already stagnating educational index and hurt those who need smaller classes. The issue stands also with those with learning disabilities or other problems impeding on learning. I, as many others, have ADHD. This disorder hurts concentration and had wrecked havoc on my learning for most of my primary schooling. When I entered secondary school, the classes were smaller and I had support from administration and from teachers. This one on one with teachers can be so important to students. At this early age peer pressure can lead to anorexia or depression. A sense of loneliness can consume a young child where a close teacher can be someone to lean on. For educational purpose, there is not argument, smaller classes are better. There is a reason that colleges try to shrink there class size and use it as a selling point. For the future of this nation, the cost should not matter. We must pursue smaller class sizes.
Large Class sizes(pro) vs. smaller class sizes(con)

(I forgot about this note, but this debate is mostly focusing on High school/secondary education) 1) My first reason for larger classroom sizes is that fewer teachers are required and that it allows better teachers to use their talents on more students. . This means that rather than having say, 30 students distributed across a brilliant teacher and a mediocre one, the schools can have more students under the leadership of the best teachers. 2) Following on from the first point, with fewer teachers, fewer classrooms will be required for the same courses and students. With the emptied rooms, new courses can be introduced to expand the course selection and help students pursue their interests. Therefore, larger classes allow the school facilities' space to be used more efficiently. 3) Larger classes will allow more collaboration among students because with more students under the same teacher will have similar assignments and therefore a greater capacity to help each other. 4) Fewer teachers also means that more money can be paid to the teacher or invested into the facilities or class materials which can improve teaching as a profession and/or improve school facilities.
Large Class sizes(pro) vs. smaller class sizes(con)

I would like to have a friendly debate so that I may understand the opposing arguments to my beliefs. I recall you saying that you are passionate about education reform so I would be honored if you would debate this topic with me so that I may expand my knowledge of this. Rules are quite standard: 1) No semantics, kritiks, etc. 2) This is a casual debate so both sides will have the benefit of assumption. If you want to post sources, feel free to do so.
Wikipedia is a Credible Source

Hello everyone, It appears as if Pro has forfeited to the extent of deactivating his account at the moment. I extend all of my arguments because there was no true rebuttal in this round nor the previous round. Thus I will summarize my conclusion from the last round below: (A) If we are using sources for truth and knowledge, by definition, there is NO other standard to appeal to other than the academic standard, which is the same standard used in all professional fields of research.(B) By the true definition of peer-review, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, and thus Pro’s main argument is destroyed. (C) By Pro’s classification of Wikipedia as a tertiary source, which is constructed by the academic standard of source evaluation, Pro is subjecting Wikipedia to the academic standard. (D) I have also shown that tertiary sources are generally NOT used research but as a means to find good sources. Pro, has yet to show any other standard by which sources are evaluated, but instead only shows that other fields use sources. (E) Pro’s only basis for Wikipedia being credible is the use of sources for no reason other than for subjective research, which makes Wikipedia’s credibility subject to interpretation as there is no standard other than Pro’s by which Wikipedia is held to. Thank you all for taking the time to participate in the debate and I would like to thank Pro for his arguments and participation. While I would typically call for a vote in light of a forfeit, I ask the voters to consider only the arguments, but of course if the forfeit cannot be overlooked so be it. Yours truly, Logic In Life
Wikipedia is a Credible Source

I. Introduction Several people have told me that Wikipedia is not a credible source because "anyone can edit it." For years, I believed this assertion simply because it appeared to be true. Now, after a closer look, I have reversed my opinion. Wikipedia is a credible source. II. Debate Structure This debate will proceed as follows: 1. Acceptance. 2. Opening Arguments. 3. Rebuttals. 4. Rebuttals. 5. Closing Arguments. III. Debate Rules: 1. Kritiks are strictly prohibited. 2. All sources must be cited. 3. Forfeiture is prohibited. *Failure to comply with the rules will immediately result in a loss for the offender. IV. Conclusion I am confident that this will be an excellent debate. Furthermore, I wish the best of luck to whoever accepts this debate. Thanks, - Mr. Speaker
Tabula rasa is all around the fairest way to judge a debate round.

Tabula rasa (or tab ross) is technically defined as having no preconceptions. Thus one is not allowed to bring in their own knowledge or opinion into judging a debate round. They simply have to vote on what is there. A little elaboration on what a tab ross judge is..... They do get to come into the round with a moderate sense of logic. (and should) Without it, they couldn't judge debate, because they couldn't follow any arguments that were being brought up in the debate. For example, if a person says in a debate: "disregard any new arguments that my opponent brings up in his last speech as I do not have a chance to respond to them, and that is unfair".... Unless fairness is being debated, the judge has a sense of what is new, and that it is unfair to consider what is new in the debate round. A tab ross judge is the fairest because they vote strictly on the debate, not on any opinions, bias's, or anything else. Just the debate. With that, I await my opponents response.
Military enlistment ( to enlist or choose a diffrent option)

the youngest you can enlist is 17 and thats with parental approval and the only way a 17 year old will be seeing duty in the military is in the reseverves or national guard and will not be deloyed unless they've graduated and on top of that most 17 year olds are still in highschool therefore cannot be deployed. use of nukes insteadof soliders is a bad rap for one because it doesnt just effect that country espeacially if water sources are contaimianted in longer term nuke are bad for everyone not just those blow sky high by the weapon, 2 nuclear warfare is banned by the geneva convetion
Military enlistment ( to enlist or choose a diffrent option)

Pro still provided no arguments. I shall therefore proceed in mine...A) Military enlistment is not fun.B) You can possibly die in combat.C) Guns are unsafe and can cause major damage to your body.D) People do not like to fight and die.E) There is always the chance of a mutiny in the army if soldiers[1] become too unhappy.F) At age 16, you are still too young to die.G) There is no need for ordinary kiddos to join the armed forces unless China invades.H) You can always use nukes instead of soldiers.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Military enlistment ( to enlist or choose a diffrent option)

I am sorry for the broad argument I made it to see people opinions for a project in school, to clear things up: 1 I meant should enlist as in as an option not in terms of forced enlistment, 2 the argument more specifically is meant to be an argument on what your choice is and why so for example I would choose military enlistment because I believe it is a viable carrier and decent education path even though there is risk, 3 please leave a comment for further dissection please
Military enlistment ( to enlist or choose a diffrent option)

People should have the freedom of choosing whether or not to enlist.This is because: A) Freedom is vital, even in the military.B) Forcing people to join the military will make them unhappy.C) People deserve freedom.D) The military is a difficult place to be.E) There are many setbacks in having unenthusiastic soldiers.F) This was a rule made by the Nazis.You can also argue that people SHOULD have to enlist in the military.This is because:A) People should have a duty to serve their country.B) People should exercize.C) This may become necessary in order for a country to become powerful/survive.Conclusion:Pro provided no arguments. I did not even fully understand his position. Anyway, I hope he will clear up the confusion in the next round.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Military enlistment ( to enlist or choose a diffrent option)

Pro has still not really presented any real arguments. He states that he just wants to "talk" about the topic. However I don't think he realizes that DDO is for debating. I will proceed to refute his arguments."l and the only way a 17 year old will be seeing duty in the military is in the reseverves or national guard"There is always a chance that the National Guard/reserves might have to fight in a war. Depends on the global situation."2 nuclear warfare is banned by the geneva convetion"Countries have broken laws written in the Geneva Convention before. In the Geneva Convention, POW's are not allowed to be treated harshly but Japan/Germany killed millions of POW's."use of nukes insteadof soliders is a bad rap for one because it doesnt just effect that country espeacially if water sources are contaimianted"I don't think terrorists would pay much attention to this.Conclusion:Throughout this debate, I have presented multiple arguments. Pro simply decided to have a discussion. Well he had one, but due to the fact that he presented no real arguments and instead simply responded to mine, I win this debate.
James Cameron's ‘Titanic' is hated mostly in reaction to its highest grossing film status

I concede. You win. I've changed my mind partly due to your arguments, partly because the more I think it through, I realise Titanic's success is only a catalyst for its hatred, not the sole reason. You're totally right; it's a combination of the wishy-washy romance, the teeny bopper thing AND its success. I really like it though. Thanks for debating!
James Cameron's ‘Titanic' is hated mostly in reaction to its highest grossing film status

Rehashing the Titanic phenomenon brings me back in the day, and that's always fun. To state that people only hate Titanic because it was so successful presumes a lot, and I must say presumes falsely. I know you to be wrong because I remember why I disliked it so much. It was a fad. It was like the Macarena. You couldn't get away from it if you wanted to. It was everywhere, and stupid little girls were swooning over it like cult members. It doesn't matter what age you are, that is just annoying. Perhaps I just had a childhood different from most of my peers, but teeny-bopper pop culture made my skin crawl then, as it does now. For this reason, it falls into the category of NSYNC or Backstreet Boys. Yes, they were popular, which made them more annoying, but most guys will have a natural aversion to pretty-boy, semi-fruity, barely talented guys singing songs that weren't theirs and dancing to routines they spent the entire day practicing. It's like girls who have an aversion to other girls who put on a pound of makeup, talk about getting implants the first chance they get, flirt with every guy they can and play (or genuinely are) retarded just to be cute. Leonardo Dicaprio, as well as the entire story, came of as being this kind of thing. The movie tapped into the same hatred most of us had for the boy bands. Not to mention, most guys also have a natural aversion to such sappy, cavity-inducing love stories that go overboard (pun intended) like it did in Titanic. The fact that the movie was so successful only reinforced how irritating the movie already was to most of the male world. For girls, it was largely a fad, like I explained above, which led to the backlash you mentioned before. People didn't hate the Macarena because it was successful. They hated it because it was inherently annoying, but group think too over and made everyone feel as though they had to go along with it. Titanic was the same.
James Cameron's ‘Titanic' is hated mostly in reaction to its highest grossing film status

That ‘Titanic' grossed a phenomenal amount of money worldwide strongly indicates that, upon its initial cinematic release, audiences liked it. They liked it enough to recommend it to others, while some liked it enough to see it twice. After the hype had subsided, about a year later, something strange happened. It became the antithesis of ‘cool'. It transformed from being the movie that everyone was talking about to a source of parody and a frequent inclusion in "worst blockbuster ever" lists. The backlash was enormous and is ongoing. I propose that the film is hated more as a reaction to its status as the highest grossing film of all time than for any other reason. People like to think of themselves as superior to "the masses" while being, of course, part of them. Given its association with a level of near-hysteria at the time of its first release (those stories of some fans going to see it seventy times), I propose that people have tried to distance themselves from the phenomenon it originally caused, since sheep-like thinking is generally regarded negatively. That's all for now. Please respond.
Fairy Tales Are Possible In The Real World

I will assume that by 'Definition' you meant fairy tale even though it was not spelled out. Your example contradicts your own point of view. If his story is a 'fairy tale' the statement you provided is saying that he is in fact NOT a millionaire. Therefore it is impossible that he is a millionaire at that point and proves my point. Also, your last sentence is misleading. Because firstly a 'belief' is relative to each person, and secondly arguing that a statement itself is possible seems to state that you are saying that it is possible to state an incredible statement.
Fairy Tales Are Possible In The Real World

Since pro did not state the definition of Fairy Tale or Possible, I will define the terms below. Fairy tale- "a children's story about magical and imaginary beings and lands." Possible- "able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something" (New Oxford American Dictionary) Therefore stated in the definition of fairy tale a fairy tale is 'imaginary' and thusly is not 'able to be done' By definition the statement provided by pro is contradictory.
Fairy Tales Are Possible In The Real World

I believe that Fairy Tales are possible in the way that you can get a happily ever after ending. I'm not arguing that there are such things as mermaids, witches, talking mice, a spinning wheel that can put you in a sleeping curse or be able to make yourself look like a an old lady selling apples. I believe that you have to work for your happily ever after. Most people don't have happily ever afters because they are not working hard enough for it, I do not mean as in working hard at your education or job. I mean working hard to keep your companion safe and in love with you, An analogy can be like sweeping her or him off their feet.
Fairy Tales Are Possible In The Real World

As unclear as you would describe me to be, I will reiterate and reinforce my position. The example of the person's millionaire story is just an example I needed to help others better understand the type of fairy tale I am arguing the existence of. The sentence was not intended to be used to support my belief. The sentence is meant to be voided after understanding the type of fairy tale I'm arguing for. The definition that a fairy tale is an incredible or misleading statement, account or belief is just a statement that is closest to my belief of what a fairy tale is. An example is a fairy tale in general could be that a regular Joe is just having a dull and loveless life. Meanwhile, he encounters bells in his head when he sees this beautiful chick and she also has the same feeling. Then, he knows without a shadow of a doubt that they are truly meant for each other. However, there is something stopping them from tying the knot very quickly. The obstacle can be anything like living far away, a difference in ethnicity (An Jewish person marrying a Palestinian person) or etc. Then, they both would do everything they can to be with each other and in the end they achieve their happily ever after once they defeat the obstacle. The catch is that the journey had to be a hard one in order to truly be a fairy tale.
Churches Paying Taxes

I feel weird. I feel needed I feel interesting. What do these words describe? Well, Me! What am I? A person! What is plural person? People! What do people do? Go to church! "Take me to church I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife Offer me that deathless death Good God, Let me give you my life" What is this? Lyrics of Take Me To Church by Hozier. Churches need to be free and not pay taxes because so many people rely on them, And they'd be hurt to hear that the places they go to to worship the gods are paying taxes. PassiveSquirrel, Your debate is making it more likely to have churches taxed, Make people get hurt, All because of you. Don't hurt these people, Squirrel, These people need to live in peace, With freedom and rights. Let the religious thrive with their ways of living! No sources, This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Churches Paying Taxes

Hope you are having a good day! My opponent said, "Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. " Sure churches are the center for religion, But they shouldn't be tax exempt. All places that make money pay taxes, Except churches. Churches make money, Lots of it, And they don't donate that much. Also, I just went to your source and found that it has nothing to do with the topic. Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches
Churches Paying Taxes

Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. People rely on them to help themselves worship gods and to live through and with their religion but I am a simple cow with not much knowledge of pigs. Pigs are a mystery to me they are always bouncing around with their big fat pig butts. I am attracted to pigs but I am to nervous to tell anyone because my mom and dad are very strinkt. They are kind of strange and they really confuse me some times, But I really like cows and butterscotch and yeah Japan! ALSO I MAY WARN YOU THAT THIS SITE IS JUST A LOT OF WORDS SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING GO TO THE BOOKSTORE DWEEB! * Also, You better floss! I mean the teeth kinda floss don't do that garbage in my face! Source(s): https://sites. Google. Com/madisoned. Org/archived-candy-club/
Churches Paying Taxes

Churches should pay taxes because they are just like other companies that pay taxes. Churches make money, And all companies who make money get taxed. By taxing churches their would be an estimated $71 billion worth of taxes. $71 billion is a lot of money that could be spent to benefit the world. Yes, Churches do donate money, But the Mormon church spends only. 7% of their annual income on charity. The American Red Cross spends 92. 1% of their income to assist people. "Wal-Mart, For instance, Gives about $1. 75 billion in food aid to charities each year, Or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years. (Derek Beres, 2012)" Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches