BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voucher programs are a very bad idea

Vouchers are a plan to put tax money into private hands, it's not about education at all. Only the religious right will go along for the possibility of teaching biblical science in schools not subject to constitutional scrutiny. The voucher and online school plans are a product of ALEC, and are designed to profit ALEC members. In the shared experiences of public school, we form a unity of culture, and of purpose. Public schools are where we build citizens. If we only think of schools as places to learn facts, history, and skills, then we risk undervaluing the other, equally important functions that school perform. Lately, there has arisen a pattern of denigrating and underfunding public schools while at the same time allowing easier withdrawal from the public system in favor of private schools and vouchers. This should not be allowed to continue. If the shared experience of public school builds citizens and nations, education outside the system works against those goals. There seems to be an unspoken and hidden agenda to change the public education system to where it's not even recognizable. It's right out of the playbook of a national movement to eviscerate government in favor of private and for-profit enterprises. background- http://alecexposed.org...
Voucher programs are a very bad idea

As pro has made a positive claim, the burden of proof is on him. As the topic is education, and education is cited in his opening statement, I shall assume that education vouchers are those to which he is referring. Otherwise, it's a pretty broad topic for pro to prove all vouchers are "a very bad idea. " Secondly, pro cites no evidence to support his claim that "Voucher programs were devised as a means of siphoning off public money to private companies, and it has nothing to do with better education," and it should therefore be rejected as baseless, at least until some evidence of this hypothesis is provided. Good luck to pro!
Are sports better than video games

You can get different experiences playing different games, wheras playing one sport tends to feel the same as playing another. You could play Super Mario Bros for a more nostalgic feel, you can play CoD or BF on multiplayer for an average multiplayer experience, or you could play Super Smash Brothers for challenge and fast pace. There's also lots of scary games like Amnesia and Silent Hill. You could also play Sonic the Hedgehog or Kirby for a more casual feel.
Intelligent life exists beyond Earth

Why shouldn't there be alien life in outer space? Once we space travel more often, we are bound to bump into another species of aliens. The probabilities that aliens exist is over the top considering the vastness of our universe. It is sort of arrogant to claim that our Earth is the only one with life in the universe. It is like a country who has never traveled far into sea, sees nothing in the horizon, and then claim that that is the only country with intelligent life prospering.If Earth, some random planet in the universe contain intelligent life made up of dna then why not other planets too? What makes us so rare? Just cause we are in the 'goldilocks' zone that allows life, why must we be the only ones? I'm pretty sure that in a universe this big, there has to be a solar system with a planet in the goldilocks zone. And if life needs water, well we've already found some on the moon and on Mars in the polar ice caps. Some people say yes there is life in space, but you know, they are 'microbes' or really small bacteria because these exo-organisms can live in extreme conditions. But why? Why microbes ONLY? The chances of a perfect planet with perfect conditions existing are highly likely and Earth is not actually as perfect as some presume. Life isn't 'prefect' and life is not a freak of nature because if it was, there is no point to evolution. Think about it, evolution is the theory of self perpetuation and survival, becoming better than before, expansion or population growth. I don't believe evolution is just adaptation because then all organisms can just die and nothing needs to adapt to anything. Therefore they adapt and improve. So with evolution being a part of nature and nature is everywhere in the universe, then there must be life in outer space or a small amount of it. Intelligent yes, because again, if evolution creates better organisms and thus created humans, then it can replicate that proccess elsewhere in the galaxy or outside the galaxy.
Avatar is an amazing film

Although the cg of avatar was good, the movie contained within it atrocious logic and realism problems. Let me point out some examples: 1. Floating mountains are completely absurd 2. Runoff was coming off the floating mountains even tough there was clearly no ice or snow on top 3. In the final battle, the humans are retarded enough to fly through a canyon at like 25 mph when they could easily fly over the mountains and not be ambushed. Also the jet could fly a very high altitude and drop the bomb before the na'vi knew what hit them. Better yet, the space ship floating in orbit could drop a bomb or kinetic weapon from orbit. 4. Kevlar doesn't protect from arrows? The arrow is more blunt and is traveling slower than a bullet. Yet the Kevlar does nothing and the soldier is killed instantly. 5. The soldiers had sophisticated radar and could see the na'vi coming through the forest for some distance. If the soldiers had just blind fired into the forest, th Na'vi wouldn't have come close at all. Also what happened to snipers? 6. Machine guns just didn't do anything against larger animals. Those Rhino like creatures at the end of the movie would have gotten annihilated in a second by those huge .50 caliber machine guns the goliaths were carrying. Also the jaguar like creature in the beginning of the film doesn't die by machine guns. 7. It took way to many missiles to destroy that large tree where the Na'vi lived. It would have taken one or two bunker busters to destroy that tree. 8. Nature was supposedly conscious because of the neural network that was formed over the entire planet between trees and thus was able to save the Na'vi in the end. However because of the distances in this neural network, a conscious thought would be impossible because of ohms and signal degeneration. Also the speed at which a neural message would travel would take a long time to activate the targetted neural function. 9. Somehow all the creatures on the planet exist in a symbiotic relationship by connecting their neurons which evolutionarily is impossible. 9. Unubtanium is an unoriginal name. Because of these gaping plot holes, I must disagree with the statement that avatar is an amazing film. It was mediocre at best.
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

As your points make sense, they do not actually explain what everything else would then mean. If I were to get the freedom to get whatever lunch I wanted, that is not freedom of expression. Expression is being able to express who you are, technically speaking, legally. People may judge you but you still have the freedom. Freedom is a very broad term. You can have freedom of expression, freedom of slavery, or freedom of, like, homework. Expressing yourself is being able to be who you want and also freedom of expressing your opinion. You can have freedom of slavery but that doesn't necessarily mean you have the freedom from other things like talking about freedom of expression, the right to vote. If you didn't know [which I'm guessing you did] after slavery was abolished African Americans still couldn't exactly vote. 5 votes from them would count as three vote overall, which is not technically freedom of expression if you ask me, because like I said, freedom is a very broad term and can be used for any things. Basically just saying that freedom of expression represents every freedom ever is a pretty big claim. That's all I have to say for now and I'm excited to see what you come up with.
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

Freedom of expression and freedom are equivalent. All freedom is necessarily freedom of expression. Everything a person intentionally does is necessarily an expression by himself or herself and of himself's or herself's. Everything a person intentionally does is necessarily an action he or she wants to do. Expressing is necessarily an action. Each action necessarily has the property that it can be done. For the reasons of the previous two sentences, if a person has the freedom to do any action, then he or she has the freedom to do the action "expressing himself or herself as he or she wants to express himself or herself." If a person has freedom of expression, then he or she has freedom. Conversely, and as suggested by the previous paragraph, if a person has freedom, then he or she has freedom of expression. So, by Biconditional Introduction, a person has freedom of expression if and only if he or she has freedom. Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom are logically equivalent. Freedom of expression can be defined as freedom, and freedom can be defined as freedom of expression.
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

I keep telling you, you're jumping to the conclusions of people's actions! You can't just assume the person doesn't want to do chores or whatever. You HAVE to analyze the work in front of you. If someone has the freedom of no chores, you're immediately thinking about their actions afterwards. If you can't make a decision based on the topic you're given then that means in this case freedom of expression is not equivalent to freedom. You're making the decision for a what-if scenario.
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

Freedom of homework is a type of freedom of expression. If I do not have to do homework, then I am free to express and realize my dreams regarding whether I want to do homework. Freedom of chores is another type of freedom of expression. If I do not have to do chores, then I am able to better express myself because I can better show the world whether I actually want to do chores.If a person does not freely express himself or herself, then he or she is not free. If a person is not free, then he or she does not freely express himself or herself. So by Biconditional Introduction, a person does not freely express himself or herself if and only if he or she is not free. By a property of biconditional statements, a person freely expresses himself or herself if and only if he or she is free. Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom are equivalent.
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

I can think of other examples but freedom of homework IS NOT expressing yourself. Freedom of chores and stuff is not expression. So if you have the freedom from anything captivating you, that is not freedom of expression. Your intention here is to jump to the conclusions of people's actions and not just analyzing the statement. What I mean is, you take sentences like, Freedom of homework, and then assume things like, that means they can do whatever they want and then that's a way of expressing yourself. Using scenarios like this doesn't explain the question given in front of you which is why freedom of captivity in anyway is not a sign of freedom of expression.
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

"Freedom of expression" taken in a highly literal sense does mean general freedom. Everything I intentionally do is an expression of myself, my wants, and thus who I am as a person.As can be seen from sense 1a of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary's definition of "expression," found at https://www.merriam-webster.com..., expression is related to representing in any way. However I represent myself, that representation is an expression of myself. Everything I intentionally do affects my identity and thus my representation. If I move my arm, for example, that small action is nevertheless an expression of myself, as it expresses my desire to move my arm and it affects my identity and representation in reality.Having the freedom to get whatever lunch you want is a freedom of expression. In having whatever lunch you want, you are expressing your desire of what you want for lunch. You are registering yourself, your feelings, and your wants in reality.
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

As I have said repeatedly the whole idea of a one world language is ridiculous and I reject it on its face. Therefore whether my opponent would or could the one world language just doesn't fly. He has yet to prove why it would work or how it would work or if it would work or why it would work. All he does is continue to insist that a one world language WOULD logically be English and I see it differently. I think it's highly presumptuous of my opponent to think that we can impose our will to make it easier for us to communicate with the world. The whole idea again is ridiculous and just won't work. There are too many cultures, languages and customs in many countries they speak multiple languages in order to get along. If anything we need to reach more people by speaking more languages not fewer ones. I encourage you to vote contrary as my opponent has failed to demonstrate his position and my position is quite clear.
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

I reject the idea of a one-world language, too. I'm simply saying English WOULD be the best choice if there were to be one. If I could bold, underline, highlight, circle, and draw arrows pointing to thye "WOULD", I would.Why you should vote Pro: Con has wasted his debate ranting on false accusations about me and not backing up his side of the resolution with any facts or reasoning. No matter how many times I tell Con about the WOULD, he doesn't seem to get it into his head. Now, it is understandable that he would bomb a debate since he is new to this site. I have included facts and data to support my end of the resolution whil Con has used no such thing, all he does is rant.
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

So you're saying that your opinion is that English would be the best one world language. Big deal, that's your opinion! Opinions are fine but it doesn't amount to a constructive argument. I have put my side our there and have repeatedly stated that you're wrong. The evidence that you're wrong is that no accepted international organization has thought it a good idea. I mean a one world language, the very idea is ridiculous. I can't imagine a more idiotic mundane problem posed as whether or not you think English is the best language for the whole world to use. I'm new to this site and have just started posting arguments and don't need your condescending words. Let's just leave it here: your stance is ludicrous and I completely reject that it could or would ever occur.
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

I would like to begin my argument with a picture depicting my current feelings. My resolution says that English WOULD be the most LOGICAL one-world language, not English SHOULD BE the one-world language! Can you not get that in your head? And hello? Convincing people is what you're supposed to do in DEBATES! Welcome to DEBATE.org, genius!And you think making up random crap about me with no validitity is all ship-shape? I don't wanna be a dictator, decide speed limits, or force-marry people! I DO NOT WANT A ONE-WORLD LANGUAGE, GENIUS. I'm just saying that IF and pay attention to the IF there were to be one, it SHOULD be English. Now that I've gotten my anger out I hope my opponent will get some sense into his head of what I'm arguing. And I also hope that he can make some valid arguments to help his side of the resolution.
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

Excuse me friends but apparently my opponent is now trying to say that he is not for a one world language. I'm confused as it is stated that "English would be the most logical choice for a one world language" is his stance. I'm simply saying that is blatantly ridiculous that somehow you're going to wave your magic wand and people around the world will agree to this idea. I'm sure that everyone in their own country would love the world to speak their language. It's not surprising that someone from the US thinks everyone should speak English. However reality tells me that it won't happen and therefore is a ridiculous folly to propose it in the first place. Perhaps my opponent would like everyone to drive a certain speed in their country, or attend a specific church or marry whomever he decides is ok to marry. I think however that people will speak whatever language they need to in order to grow and prosper and can do so without us dictating to them what, how or in what language thy should speak. As for my opponent's attempts to dismiss my arguments I think quite the contrary that he has dismissed his entire case. His premise is foolhardy and his argument is weak and unrealistic, therefore it's a losing one. Say no to a one world language!
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

Bro, you've got me all wrong. I don't THINK there should be a one-world language, I just think English would be the most logical option if there were to be one...so that cancels all of your arguments in Round 2. To the readers and voters: Con has wasted his round 2 by spewing false impressions about me and not even defending his side of the resolution. I will now present my second argument. 2. English is similar to many other languages, so it won't be too hard too learn for most people. Most English words are based on Latin and Greek roots, as are other languages. Spanish, for example, is highly based on these roots, and is already somewhat similar to English.
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

However I think he needs a civic lesson on the respect for other cultures and customs. It's true that English is spoken in many places around the world. This I won't deny, what I'm saying is that it's fundamentally wrong for us to force our language as a one world language. That borders on fascism to think that we can dictate to the world what language they will speak. I'm a proud American but I also recognize that other people and customs must be respected as well. If countries wish to as is the case with airports around the globe that use English as a common language that's fine. But we can't dictate to anyone what they can or can't enforce in their own sovereign nation. The whole idea of globalization kind of gives me the creeps anyway. No to one world language!
English would be the most logical choice for a one-world language

I would like to point out a few grammatical mistakes in my opponent's first argument (Yes, I am a Grammar Nazi). -He spells "Mandarin" like "Mandaton". -He spells "Chinese" like "Chineese". I will point out the benefits of a one-world language speaking English. 1. Many countries already speak English, or have a large population of English-speakers. Some of these countries include the USA, Canada, Jamaica, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and India. Many other countries have languages with a higher amount of native speakers, but sill have a significant amount of English-speaking citizens. Pakistan - 88,690,000 total English speakers Nigeria - 79,000,000 total English speakers Philippines - 52,292,884 total English speakers Germany - 51,584,000 total English speakers Bangladesh - 29,398,158 total English speakers As you can see, most countries already have a large English-speaking population. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I would go into demographics of more major countries, but that will be saved for later. Present your argument(s).
Pizza; Sauce over crust

This debate is about which one is better in a pizza. Obviously the crust. The crust is not only the edges, but all the dough in the pizza, making it the most important. Without the crust, there is no pizza. Having pizza with just crust and cheese is like eating cheese on bread. Pizza Pizza even has a product like this called the "half moon cheesy bread" http://www.pizzapizza.ca... So of course it would taste good. Without the crust, you would just be drinking tomato sauce and cheese out of a cup. With crust, you will actually be eating, and there are already pizzas without sauce. So in a pizza, the crust is much better than the sauce.
Homework from Schools

I think that kids are getting way to much homework kids spend most of their days at school and don't need that extra stress on them. they are already waking up at 7:00 or 8:00 and going to school stay there for up to 7 hours and then only have a few hours with their family but if they are given homework that makes spending time with your family shorter. now i want you guys that are disagreeing with me to think about this would you rather spend time with your family or spend time doing homework.
Communism is necessarily oppressive. (In practice AND theory)

It has been said by the apologists of Communism, that the Soviet and Maoist dictatorships, and other forms of despotism that has claimed basis in Communist doctrine, are nothing but distortions or betrayals of "true Communism". In order to make my argument, then, I will use as evidence only the writings of Marx and Engles themselves, so that it cannot be dismissed as a distortion. If a society is free, meaning that the principles of individual Liberty are prioritised, the members of that society will, by definition, be granted the right to denounce the government, verbally or by any other non-violent and non-intrusive means, as to uphold the same right for all other members of that society. Communism cannot work this way. Firstly, it theorises society as a collective, or several sets of collectives (classes) which are said to be in perpetual conflict with each other. This theory of classes, with attributed intentions, is quite easily put to rest when you consider that the members of each of these classes are in no way permanent members. A rich man can become poor and a poor man can become rich. You simply do not become something as a result of your perpetual conflict with and resistance against it. This is instead a clear indication that individuals, and individuals only, can hold intent. In order, then, that a Communist regime might maintain confidence in its doctrine, those individuals who do not conform to the regime's conjecture about what the "proletariat" thinks about this or that matter (most advocates of communism surprisingly have never been part of the working class, and so their attempts to speak on its behalf is unfounded) are branded "traitors" and are outcasted from that class. The question is , what to do with those who do not conform to the expectations of Communism under such a regime; those people, of all economic "classes", who don't buy this idea of perpetual conflict between themselves? The answer is given by Marx in The Communist Manifesto: After the establishment of what Marx calls "the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the proletariat rules, any and all viable resistance must be "surpressed" either by indoctrination or force. This is why it is so important for a Communist state to "centralise" military power (for me this is the cheapest way for Marx to avoid using the term "monopoly".) Any and all resistance. This means, from any person, in any economic class, and by any method. There is no emphasis on the method of resistance, it could be physical, or verbal, or literary. And resistance is left undefined, so that the slightest utterance of an idea which may question any of the hundreds of implicit doctrines of Communism is equivalent to an armed resistance. This is despotism by definition. It is completely impossible to produce a Free state from the application of Communism. Communism by definition is totalitarian.