BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chess is not need in Schools

The Con has said how its more than just a game, and it that it teaches life skills, well I'm here to tell you why that is wrong. Chess is a very strategic game and it can be confusing to some kids, if it is part in the school curriculum then the people that don't get how to play or doesn't want to learn how to play how can you force them? its just a board game and if its part of the curriculum then you can't skip the class because its now a subject, like math or english and you can't skip those. There are many other board games like chess, checkers, sequence, and even game of life that teaches the same and even more fundamentals then chess. Is every single board game now going to be part of school subjects? why chess. there are others that are more easier, fun and more enjoyable then just chess. As i chess lover myself i really like playing the game but chess... really? part or the school curriculum? thats like saying playing computer games is now going to be a school subject. Thats why i think chess should be a game where you play after school if you want to or just at home.
Chess is not need in Schools

Let me re-state my arguments 1: i have already said that chess is a board game and not a school subject. People HATE bored games, and yes people dislike Math or english as well but adding chess is a weird idea. Go as i have stated in my 3rd argument, is a great game and has the same fundamentals, Same benefits and more as it has no Luck just problem solving, risk taking and more. 2:Yes, i agree that monopoly is a game of luck but what about the other statement that i have said? that Go is a better game in many different ways. Now I'm going to talk about your arguments and state why all of them are wrong and then prove to you that Chess is a great game but still should not be added into the school curriculum as there are many other games that have the same benefits and fundamentals, maybe even more. 1: You have first stated that Children's minds are like sponges and that they can pick up the game and learn it even when they are only 4 years old. studies from the kids growth site has said that children's attention spans are only around 3 - maybe 15 minuets as you are a teacher your self you should know that little kids have a habit of mucking around or not listening. Little kids can't just sit down and learn things especially chess which is very confusing to learn, and as i have stated before there many other games in the world that have the same fundamentals or has the same benefits as chess, including Go or Sequence. Chess Can help with Algorithms and graphing but don't you just learn them in Math? when i wen to school graphing was a fun bit in math and so was Algorithms but adding a whole subjects just to "help" with those are a bit much. 2: Yes that is really great how you are teaching kids that have disabilities chess and i take my hat off to you for that. Chess would be a great game to learn but i think that Chess isn't that important to learn as you should be doing more Math or English then playing board games. Most of your statements all lead up to the fact that there are other board games out there in the world, why chess? what about Go? Sequence? even chess champions agree that Go is sometimes better then chess in some situations. and thats why chess is a great game to learn but it is still a board game and that there are many other games in the world that have the same benefits and fundamentals as chess and maybe even more.
Chess is not need in Schools

Well let me go ahead and shut down your arguments: Your first argument is saying we should not incorporate chess is because it's too hard, and students won't learn it. -If this is true, then why don't we take out English, and math? Just because a subject is too hard, we need to remove it? If this was the case, we would have no subjects since everyone will have a subject they will struggle in. Your second argument, is why don't we put a more fun and enjoyable game in the curriculum (monopoly, go, etc..)? -The reason we shouldn't put a game like monopoly, is because that game favors heavily in luck, by rolling the dice. Chess is all skill, and requires no luck. It takes skill to find the best move to make checkmate, you don't get lucky that you won.
War of wits

How do you get a sweet little 80-year-old lady to say the F word? Get another sweet little 80-year-old lady to yell "BINGO!" The shinbone is a device for finding furniture in a dark room. Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you, but not in one ahead... If evolution is fact, why do mothers only have two hands? I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives... My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch. Evening news is where they begin with "Good evening", and then proceed to tell you why it isn"t... Haha, thank you to my opponent. Thank you to my source(s)! Voters please vote PRO! XxOo
War of wits

Did you know that dolphins are so intelligent that within only a few weeks of captivity, they can train Americans to stand at the very edge of the pool and have them throw fish. I'd like to help you out. Which way did you come in? Don't drink and drive. You might hit a bump and spill your drink. Can fat people go skinny-dipping? To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first. And, whatever you hit, call it the target. Heha ;)
War of wits

Avoid fruits and nuts. You are what you eat. --Jim Davis If you are talking behind my back, you are in a good position to kiss my a**. I had a nightmare last night. I dreamed Dolly Parton was my mother and I was a bottle baby. --Henny Youngman I take my wife everywhere, but she keeps finding her way back. --Henny Youngman Just got back from a pleasure trip: I took my mother-in-law to the airport. --Henny Youngman You can't buy love, but you can pay heavily for it. --Henny Youngman My wife dresses to kill. She cooks the same way. --Henny Youngman When God sneezed, I didn't know what to say. --Henny Youngman ------------------------------------------------------------------- (I'm a big Henny Youngman fan, if you couldn't tell.)
War of wits

My apologies for forfeiting round 2, I do not wish to make excuses but I was caught up in some work issues. Here you go, I will try to make up for it! ;) Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected expected? Graduation Speech: I would just like to thank Wikipedia and whoever the hell invented copy and paste! :) Man is the only living being who cuts trees, makes paper, and writes "SAVE TREES" on it. Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you criticize them, you are a mile away and you have their shoes. Whoever uses the phrase "Easy as taking candy from a baby," has obviously never tried taking candy from a baby. Being British is about driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then traveling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. If at first you don"t succeed, "then skydiving is probably NOT for you. Never go to bed angry. Stay awake and plot your revenge... When you are at the end of your rope"tie a knot and swing :) Friendships only last when each friend thinks he has a slight superiority over the other. I may never get out of this world alive but I'll die trying. When life gives you lemons don"t be afraid to say "No thank you". If I host a party with style, am I really hostile? If two ants elope, are they antelopes? If I keep standing outside, I"m I outstanding? If I did not take a seat for a whole night, I"m I a one-night-stand... That'll do for now... :)
War of wits

A war of wits! This is purely for fun and because I just love witty sayings. Basically all you do is counter my "witty sayings" with some of yours. THE QUOTES DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE SAID BY YOU, BUT BY ANYONE. Like by a favorite comedian or author for example. Have fun:) Let the games begin. Oh and... May the odds be ever in your favor. <3 :)
Abortion

There are many hypothetical situations that go along with why abortion shouldn't be allowed. However, from a realistic standpoint, an attempt to restrict the abortions would rise not only the percentage of illegal and unsafe abortions but also the expenses of the procedure. A new law would be needed to tackle the illegal abortions and further legal hassles would have no ends. All in all, if you stop abortion, it will cause more problems than what people have started already today.
Abortion

Women who have abortions can suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS). PAS is a term that is used to describe the emotional and psychological consequences of abortion. Some symptoms of PAS may occur right after an abortion, and other symptoms may take months or years to surface. Some women may feel guilty. Guilt is a normal reaction that surfaces after the woman recognizes that abortion is wrong, and that she is responsible for committing her own abortion. Besides guilt women may express anger, have anxiety or depression, or some commit suicide. Teenagers who have abortions are especially vulnerable to PAS because they are at a critical developmental period of their life.
Abortion

Legal abortion protects women's health. Though it is an incredibly hard decision, some women need to chose what is best for them. In many cases, there have been illnesses that can be life-threatening, and the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. Though a woman might be pregnant with a child, she still is her own person and has every right to decide what she wants to do with her baby.
Abortion

Yes, some people view of it as that. However, the worldwide issue covers the legality of the act, not the moral standpoint. Although morally, abortion is against many people's beliefs, they should still have the right to chose whether or not they desire to go through with the act. It's an ongoing debate on the right of the people to perform the act, not a debate on the conscious and morality aspect to it, because not every person believes the same beliefs.
what is the best car in the world

Lamborgini's aren't just for showing off. https://answers.yahoo.com... This website tells you why one type of Lamborgini is a very good car. Lamborgini's can go fast, and I mean FAST! So i just proved that the Nissan isn't the best car in the world. Howerver, since my idiot contender made arguments only 500 words long, i cant say anymore.
Man has no reason to fear death

how do they not have reason to fear of death? people have plently of reason to fear and and i never ruined any debate seeing as there was none to begin with but i will continue to debate now. If you were standing on the edge of a cliff about to fall are you seriously saying that you would not bother as your not afraid to die? how could you not be afraid i think everyone would as you cannot expect anyone to not be afraid to not be alive this actually has to be one of the most stupid question.
Racial Profiling should be used

I. Def. RP IneffectiveNeither of my opponent's sources apply. His first one is A. In Israel, when this debate is America-centered as implied by his R2 statements. and B. Only "works" because no hijackings have been attempted. It's easy to claim you're successfully preventing a crime when in reality the crime isn't even being attempted. Prefer my evidence which uses Harvard studies to my opponent's op-ed. His second source is actually more fit for my argument; it seems to be skeptical of RP. II. Def. of RP HarmfulPro concedes erosion of trust. Big harm. Not just true with illegal immigrants. [1]III. Def. of RP UnethicalLaw enforcement is NOT "morally obligated to profile. " Rather, law enforcement is obligated to act on reasonable suspicion, regardless of race. They are morally obligated to protect and enforce law equally for all citizens. No citizen should ever be deprived of rights based on race.
Racial Profiling should be used

I will answer to each of my worthy opponents arguments: 1) Con writes that RP does not work. Well, it does [1][2]. 2) Con writes that RP erodes public trust. To a certain extent that is true. However, more is gained from RP than what is lost due to non reporting. Additionally, the source con cited is talking about illegal immigrants. Well, I must say that they deserve to be profiled. If a Latino walks into the police station, in an area near the Mexico border, that person should be profiled, especially being that the border is very porous. Also worth mentioning: Cons source provided no proof or legitimate source for their claim. 3) Con writes that RP is unethical. Law enforcement is morally obligated to profile. It is quite clear that certain types of people are more likely to commit certain crimes [3][4]. Although some people will be inconvenienced by it, it is still a tool that cannot be wasted. Sources are in comments due to character limit.
Racial Profiling should be used

I. IntroMy opponent talks specifically about racial profiling (RP) of African Americans (AAs) in R2 but does not outline the debate as only AAs in R1. Therefore, (s)he must also defend RP against other races (Arabs for terrorism, whites for white-collar crimes, etc.).II. RP IneffectiveRP is an ineffective way of combating crimes. It simply doesn't work. [1]III. RP HarmfulRP erodes public trust in law enforcement and leads to crimes not being reported. [2]IV. RP UnethicalRP targets innocent civilians because of a trait they cannot control. [3] All citizens should be granted equal protection under law (as per 14th Amendment) and also from the law. Note that this is not a legality argument (prohibited by Pro's R1 rules), but an ethical one. I'm not saying law enforcement shouldn't because the law is in place, but that they shouldn't because citizens should not be subjected to such horrid treatment, and just so happens to align with the law.V. SourcesIn comments due to character limit.
Racial Profiling should be used

The numbers make the case for racial profiling. African Americans make up 13% of the population. Therefore they should be responsible for about 13% of all homicides, right? Nope, between 1980 and 2008 African Americans were responsible for a shocking 52% of murders. It is irresponsible and dangerous to not use racial profiling. The facts dictate that certain people are way, way more likely to commit certain crimes, so they must be policed appropriately.
Rom 10:9-10 teaches Lordship salvation

I can see he has once again not responded to me. This is supposed to be a debate respond all he did was respond to my questions. So I will not take the time to respond to the same arguments hes been using the whole debate. Which I've already handled. In conclusion we've seen nothing in support of his position. Exception of scripture twisting. The bible doesn't teach works salvation Ephesians 2:8-9 Romans 6:23 Romans 10-9-10. He says this passage was thrown in his face during the last debate this is ridiculous. He plainly asked me if not at baptism when is one saved. I said belief and confession and quoted it this was the passage we were supposed to be debating. It mentions salvation connected to belief and confession and obeying the gospel a few verses down and nowhere baptism. He qoutes a few verses in Acts where people were baptised after they believed as if this supports his position I agree baptism should be more important than it is it should follow salvation immeadeatly. However its not a prerequisite. Baptism cannot change a person trust in Christ as lord can. And works shall follow.
Rom 10:9-10 teaches Lordship salvation

"In order to understand this passage I need to: 1.show the audience which I have done in my first post. 2.Show the theme of the passages from 9-11 encompasses a call to action. 3.Show that this passage is not talking about salvation, but for the gentiles not to brag, and the Jews not to think that they are all not Israel that are Israel God chosen, 4.Show what saves and how 5.To tie it all together in my conclusion. What old testament passages are use in this chapter?" Alright Ill start from here then. Sources 1. The Transformation Study Bible 2. NRSV 1. Audience Paul is writing to Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome. 2. Theme you never really gave a clear theme you said alot but you never summarized your theme summarize it into a sentence so ill know what your talking about. Response to your ?? 1. He means just what he said whoever dies to sin is free from it. 2. ?? 3. Hes talking to the jews in this verse if youd read the whole section for once hes saying that the jews are being disobedient by choosing not to obey the gospel by believing it and not to accept christ because they were believing in their own rightessness not Christ's.
Rom 10:9-10 teaches Lordship salvation

Hi my name is Andy we have debated a similar topic before. "I have heard this passage used time and time again "trying to defeat the teaching (found in the bible) that baptism is Necessary for salvation. Yet they have taken this passage out of context. Rom. 10:9-10 is not saying that one does not have to be baptized in order to be saved, Nor is it saying that all one has to do is believe in the heart and confess from the mouth and they will be saved. I have heard this Calvinistic teaching for years, and in this debate I will set the record straight." 1. I find nowhere in the bible where it teaches baptism is a prerequisite for salvation Ill wait to hear his evidence though. 2. This is not just a Calvinistic teaching if you knew what Calvinism actually teaches its even more extreme then my position. "John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" Notice that no where in this verse does it talk about confession, or repentance, as well as being baptized. Yet many hang their entire souls destiny on that verse." 1. True people depend to much on this one verse and it doesn't say confession but it does say belief just belief not baptism and aanyways this isn't even the verse were debating. "There will be 5 rules of bible interpretation that i will use. 1st. Rule of bible interpretation is: that all verses on the same topic must be considered before one draws a conclusion as to what the bible teaches concerning that topic. Thus Luke 13:3 "except you repent, you will all like wise perish." is just as valid a verse concerning salvation as John 3:16. neither cancels the other out. 2nd rule of bible interpretation is: Keep every verse in context with the passage around it. Thus I submit that Romans 10:9-10 cannot be understood unless chapters 9-11. are taken into account.. 3th rule is: "the rules of language apply." Thus we need to really dig to find what this passage means. 4th rule is: What did the original audience understand when they heard those words? 5th rule the bible harmonizes with itself, so any concluesion other wise is a wrong concluesion we need to understand as much as possible who they were and what were the circumstances that promoted the writing of the letter to them." These are all true I agree so far ive heard no good evidence in support of his position.
Capitalism is bad

Okay, I accept the debate and I think that capitalism is good because it has helped America, and it has helped people to make their own businesses, stores and stuff like without the government being in the way. First of all, what is capitalism? capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. * Second of all, how does it help America? It helps America because it's not only good for the economy, but it helps in everyday life. You can Serve God if you want to, you can really do anything you want without the government being in the way and stopping what you want to do in your life. I look forward for your reply :) *Dictionary.com
God exist, and belief in His existence is rationally justified.

On god's eternality:Pro has still not made the existence of something outside of space and time coherent.God being immaterial, whatever that means, does not escape this problem. If it's the case that something exists at all, it exists in space and time. To say something exists in no space and no time is utterly incoherent. So this being must have a mind, but minds are the effect of a physical cause- the brain. So is there a brain outside of space and time too? The whole idea is non-sense. Fine Tuning-All fine tuning s perfectly explained by the multiverse.In some universes, one would expect to see the life permitting parameters we observe.Pro makes it sound like all the universe is fine-tuned for life, but only a profoundly small percent of the universe can support life. Composition Of The Universe: Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for life0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)So life presumably needs water"Two percent of the water on earth is glacier ice at the North and South Poles. This ice is fresh water and could be melted; however, it is too far away from where people live to be usable. Less than 1% of all the water on earth is fresh water that we can actually use."1% -.-The universe as a whole is definitely not fine tuned for life.Now within this 0.03 % space in the universe, some life has evolved, but this does not point to a god.Pro:" 3.) God didn't come from an intelligent being, He is the intelligent being from which everything comes from."P1 of the argument from design is that intelligence comes from prior intelligence, it follows if god is intelligent, he had an intelligent designer. The argument contradicts its conclusions. It's special pleading to say god does not need to be designed.Conclusions:1) It's still incoherent to say a being exists outside of space and time.2) The instances of fine tuning can be explained by the multiverse3) The universe, on average is not fine tuned.4) If god is intelligent, god needs to be designed in order to avoid special pleading.http://www.fcwa.org......http://en.wikipedia.org...