BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Secondary Schools should provide cash rewards for student achievement.

The guidelines are the same as my other debate. Lets Go!!! Pro: A: Encourages responsible financial management. R: Judge, as a kid if you were to have some money given to you what would you do with it? ï¿½Most kids would go spend it on a candy bar or something else that would quickly be used and dispersed of. ï¿½Well, if you were to earn the money yourself, what would you do then? ï¿½It gives a different meaning to the money. ï¿½If you were to be given money than you would have no emotional attachment to it. ï¿½If you were to earn the money than the money seems to be worth more than just the number on the bill. ï¿½It is your money; you earned it all by yourself. ï¿½When you earn that money yourself you are most likely to save that money because you earned it yourself. ï¿½By allowing these kids earn their money then it would be teaching these kids responsible financial management. ï¿½Teaching this at this early age is crucial. ï¿½You cannot stress this enough. ï¿½This is essential to life in today's world that you know to manage you own money. ï¿½ E: Janet Bodnar, author of author of "Raising Money Smart Kids" and deputy editor at Kiplinger's Personal Finance, said "Until they work with cash, they don't understand the value of coins and currency." ï¿½If they don't work, Beacham said, they get used be being on the dole, and then when they get into college, their parents' funds are replaced by credit card spending because they want to live at the same level they did when they lived at home. Pro: A: Will increase Attendance R: Students would be more willing to come to school knowing that if they work hard and get good grades, they will be rewarded with a profit. This would reduce "hooky" and any other form of skipping school. Schools are mainly paid for every student that shows up a school. <--(public) Since students, for the most part, don't know that, this will also reduce conflict between troublemaker students and the teachers they hate.
"The chicken must have come before the egg"

OK, so first I would like to point out that the egg came before the chicken, because animals like turtles, alligators, and dinosaurs were egg laying animals, and they were around before chickens. If we are speaking about CHICKEN eggs, then the chicken egg still came first because according to ASAP Science, an egg laying species made a chicken like animal which we'll call a proto-chicken, layed a CHICKEN egg from which a chicken hatched from. The chicken egg was an egg before it was a chicken egg.
The Point of Learning Geometry

This is quite an unusual topic. Thank you for bringing it up, nonetheless. Here is why geometry should stay in schools' math curricula: 1. Many careers involve the use of geometry. Aeronautical engineers, architects, interior designers, and many others apply this subject during their workdays. And through their work, people with these careers benefit humanity (e.g., through efficiently designing buildings, in the case of an architect.) A strong knowledge of geometry enables these people to enhance the lives of people across the globe. 2. Many people rely on their visuo-spatial ability in order to think. To imagine something, one needs to recognize the specific shape and linear structures. Through being taught geometry, one develops a more enhanced visuo-spatial thinking process. 3. Geometry, as with most branches of mathematics, encourages students to apply logical thinking and problem-solving abilities. The reason why mathematical problems (and specifically those regarding geometry) appear on standardized exams, such as the SAT and GRE, is that a strong grasp of mathematical skills correlates to a stronger ability to think logically and apply knowledge to solve problems.
Global warming

"My opponent think I am for global warming. I am FOR changes to stop global warming. I don't think my opponent understands what change means. Change means to transform or alter. I want to ALTER or TRANSFORM our use of various items that cause global warming. Such as our dependency on oil, especially foreign oil, factory production of harmful gases into the atmosphere, and different means of transportation that contribute to global warming." I think that's all well and good, but my opponent is actually arguing my position. I wish to stop global warming, and have been arguing that point because I am the CON position. I am AGAINST Global warming. My opponent is PRO Global Warming, meaning, she is supposed to be arguing that she is for it. For this entire debate, she has been arguing on the wrong side. "Closing arguements: Believe it or not, global warming is occurring all across the world. Humans have cause this, by burning fossil fuels, such as carbon dioxide, cars, and factories. I am for the changing of our life styles to help stop global warming." This has nothing to do with your argument. The issue of debate is "Global Warming" and my opponent is now focusing on "Changes to prevent Global warming". She is supposed to be arguing her position, which is "PRO GLOBAL WARMING". I have offered my own arguments as to why I am against global warming. If my opponent wishes to argue for my side, that is fine, but she does so at the price of her own side of the debate.
Global warming

My opponent think I am for global warming. I am FOR changes to stop global warming. I don't think my opponent understands what change means. Change means to transform or alter. I want to ALTER or TRANSFORM our use of various items that cause global warming. Such as our dependency on oil, especially foreign oil, factory production of harmful gases into the atmosphere, and different means of transportation that contribute to global warming. Closing arguements: Believe it or not, global warming is occurring all across the world. Humans have cause this, by burning fossil fuels, such as carbon dioxide, cars, and factories. I am for the changing of our life styles to help stop global warming.
Global warming

The issue of debate is not "Global Warming Exists". Rather, you have written it as "Global Warming". Since you are arguing the Pro position (In favor), I MUST assume that you are arguing in favor of global warming. You have yet to detail a response as to why you support global warming. One argument I have encountered is that the melting of the polar ice caps will yield beaches where there were none before. Artificial beaches are quite expensive to maintain and construct, so this would obviously be a benefit. However, I argue against this because the loss of revenue from the water level rising and destroying property would most likely be greater than the revenue collected from these new beaches. Another argument for Global Warming is that the warmer temperatures are better and easier to live in. I argue that Global Warming will alter the climate in ways other than temperature, and that the overall exchange is not worth it. ***** To sum up, I have given an argument as to why I am AGAINST (Con) Global Warming. Since my opponent is FOR (Pro) Global warming, I invite her to argue her point for she has not yet provided an argument.
Global warming

I thank my opponent for giving background information on Global Warming. As you can see from the title of this debate and my position as "Con", I am against Global warming. My opponent has provided a good and clear background as to what Global Warming is and how it is caused. I am personally against Global Warming because it severely alters climates and may pose severe threats to humans. I will detail my argument in later rounds, but I must first ask my opponent to clarify her position by answering several questions: 1. Why do you believe Global warming to be a good thing? 2. Do you believe that those reasons outweigh the negative aspects of global warming? 3. How so? I await my opponent's response.
Global warming

Everyday millions of BTUs of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Because of these greenhouse gases, global warming is occurring. Global warming is the theory that the earth is getting hotter due to greenhouse gases, the ice caps in Antarctica are melting rapidly, tornadoes and hurricanes are getting stronger IE Katrina. Temperatures across the globe will rise and droughts will occur. Global warming is occurring due to various human activity, such as using oil in cars, factories, etc. We as a whole need to find more efficient means of transportation that does not include oil. I propose more electric cars. Hybrids are a great example, except they are still part gas. Factories release an enormous amount of carbon dioxide. There needs to be a regulation or even better a stop to releasing carbon dioxide in the air. If people as a whole start using public transportation and stop using private cars, the amount of carbon dioxide will immensely go down. I also suggest getting nicer and more comfortable transportation to encourage people to use the transportation. Also the transportation would go to more areas.
February Beginners Tournament (Round 3): Transhumanism would benefit humanity.

This is the debate in the third round of the February Beginners Tournament. Pro, myself, is arguing in favor of the resolution. Con, Xerdex, against.Terms:Transhumanism is "a philosophy favouring the use of science and technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition." [1]Structure:R1: Laying out the terms of the debate, acceptance, and clarification, if necessary.R2: Pro and Con lay out their arguments in regards to their positions relative to the resolution.R3: Refutations of opposing cases.R4: Defenses and conclusions. No new arguments permitted.Rules:1) No insults/trolling.2) No forfeits[1] https://en.wiktionary.org...
Hell does not exist

For the start of this round I'd like to quote one of the commenters, since he already said what I wanted to say "pro is actually making the negative claim, hence the "not." Con is making a positive claim by arguing that Hell does exist, so he has the BoP." Since a positive claim needs to have prove to be believed, and not the negative claim, the burden of proof lies on your side. Even inn a law court, if a person makes a claim, he has to proof it, not the one that is accused, that he did not do it. My opponent did not make an own point and just tried to refute my points. "In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (-Opponent) That is true, but "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (-C. Hitchens) Therefore, if you do not back up your positive claim (that hell does exist) with evidence, there is no reason to believe you. If you continue with your "burden of proof" argument that I have refuted two times by now, you have made no real argument. And the "MAYBE GOD IS BAD" (-Opponent) -argument is also not a real argument either, since god is just as proved as hell, which is not proved at all. And as your yourself said: "The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true".
Hell does not exist

All capitalization is for emphasis only. BURDEN OF PROOF My opponent tries to make the claim that he/she doesn't have the burden of proof. Well, according to this website, he/she DOES have the burdenof proof: From the Debate. org tutorial: "The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true" As a result, often it is much more difficult to argue as PRO then it is to argue as CON. Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is false, just that there is not enough evidence to prove that the resolution is true. " [1] So as anyone cam see, my opponent has the full burden of proof. It was not specifically stated that I have to prove the resolution false, and its too late to add new rules now. I don't have to provide my own evidence, I just have to show that Pro's claims COULD be wrong. I have offered an unbiased source supporting this idea, while my opponent has only offered an opinion without warrant. My opponent COULD have crafted a resolution where the burden of proof was shared by both of us. "Does Hell exist? "would be one example. Or, my opponent COULD have made a resolution where I had the burden of proof. For example, "Hell exists. " My opponent COULD have taken the Con position on that one, and in that case, the burden of proof would've been on me. HOWEVER, Pro specifically chose "Hell doesn't exist. ", and took the burden of proof by doing so. LOGICAL FALLACY Most of my opponent's arguments are based on a logical fallacy, and as such, should be disregarded. Specifically, Pro has engaged in what philosophers call the "argument from silence": " Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) " where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence" [2] In short, abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So basically, Pro hasn't offered any valid evidence to support his/her position. MAYBE GOD IS BAD Pro tries to argue that a good God wouldn't create a Hell. Even IF this were true, it wouldn't mean that Hell doesn't exist. Maybe a bad god created Hell. Now that I have fully negated my opponent's claims, I turn this debate back over to Pro. I look forward to reading what else my opponent has to say. Sources: 1. . http://www.debate.org... 2. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Hell does not exist

"As my opponent is the instigator and has taken the Pro position, he/she has the full burden of proof." This assumption is wrong. To say that hell does not exist is a conclusion based on the fact, that there is literally no proof what so ever, that a place like hell exists. To say it doesn't exist, does therefore not require a burden of proof. Anything that does not exist cannot be proved wrong, but it cannot be proved right either, so the burden of proof is totally irrelevant. Since there is no known evidence that a place like hell exists, it is logical to say that there is no hell. The same argumentation is used every day for all kinds of things. If you friend tells you that you will fall in a pot of soda after you die, is the burden of proof on you, and since you cannot disprove it, is has to be true? The concept of hell is a very contradicting idea too. If there is a god (which I do not believe), who guides everything and created everything, knowing what will happen in the future, he already predetermined, that people will do things that will lead them to hell. Can a person change what is predetermined? No, since that is not possible. Would an all loving God create a place in which people are tortured for all eternity? I think not. Would an all righteous God create a place where people go, who did something insignificant as having sex with the same gender, but no people who commit murder but repent to the lord? I think not. And because the concept of hell is cruel, contradicting to an all loving and righteous God and has no evidence at all, the conclusion that hell is not a real place is just logical.
Islam is a civilized religion

This is a debate challenge to Cassie on a forum post she made. The resolution is "Islam is a civilized religion"The definitions for the debate are as follows(1) Islam - the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.(1A) - This is not a debate on a specific type of Islam, but Islam as a whole. (2) Civilized - Having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.(2A) It is impossible to nail the precise definition of this in the context of the discussion. But the goal is to be able to show that Islam is humane, promotes the well-being of others, is culturally advanced, uses humane practices, etc. This is in comparison to the rest of the world and what is established as *normative*. Again civilized entails humane practices that promote social equality etc. (3) Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods(3A) This also correlates to how Islam functions in society due it being religious. I'm using this term because it was in the thread. The purpose is to show that Islam is civilized on a normative scale. The rules and structure are as followsStructure(1) Cassie is making an affirmative claim, so the BOP rests on her. She will start her arguments in the first round and pass in the final round. If this is not acceptable, she is welcome to send the debate challenge as she is affirming the resolution. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.9. Do not undermine the spirit of debate.I already said no semantics but any attempt to take this topic away from the purpose of the initial discussion will result in a FF. The thread can be found below for reference. http://www.debate.org...Best of luckThis debate will be moderated by the normative standards of moderation. An RFD explaining your vote be required along with a proper explanation on why points are awarded.
The USA should spend a lot less on their military.

First off, I would like to state that I am not saying the U.S. should cut of military spending completely, just that it should decrease it significantly. There is no milatarial threat to the U.S, and there never will be. Our military spending is about the same as the rest of the world combined![1] We can cut back. We spend around 700 billion dollars yearly on military [2] (and that's a low point, we spent around a trillion in the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.), that's 4% of our GDP! Think about everything that could be used on. Healthcare, welfare, education, infastructure, homes, jobs, transportation, pollution control, energy, and much more. The military is one of the worst polluters in the world, thus if we cut back we would spend less on pollution control and help the environment. The funds used for 1 week of military spending could fix world hunger[3], for goodness sakes. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.storyleak.com...
The USA should spend a lot less on their military.

I will be arguing that the U.S. spends to much on it's military, and should decrease military spending significantly, and divert the funds to more important issues. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Refuting arguments. Round: 4 Closing statements. You have 24 hours to make your arguments. You have a character limit of 8,000. Good luck ;D
Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school.

I wish her well in this debate. I will presume the debate is in the context of the United States. I will start with some rebuttal. ===CON:=== >>Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I fail to see how this would ultimatley have a net negative effect. Firstly, it will root out any teachers who aren't mentally stable enough to be allowed to teach. It thus shows flaws in the application system for teaching, and therefore countermeasures to prevent such instances are brought in. Secondly, most teachers don't even raise their fists to a student, let alone point a gun at them. ===CON:=== >>Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I would like my opponent to give proof of such acts. Until then, it has no weight upon the case. ===CON:=== >>My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The resolution doesn't imply the state would be obliged to fund the purchase of a handgun for teachers. It states they should have the right to do so. If they have the right, they would be allowed use their firearm in an event of an attack. The idea isn't that all teachers are given a gun. ===CON:=== >>Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The gun would obviously have to be kept on the person of the teacher at all times, holstered (They must carry it, as the resolution states). In terms of story "high explosive ammunitions", a teacher wouldn't be allowed more than one magazine (The one in the gun) and only standard ammunition, as special ammunition types would not be needed, therefore diminishing the risk of highly explosive ammunition. Now, onto my points: ===PRO ARGUMENT #1: SAFETY OF STUDENTS AND THE TEACHERS:=== Over the years, there have been many school shootings. Here is a map of school shootings in the U. S. : . http://www.schoolshooting.org.... The truth of the matter with these shootings is that the police are rarely unable to stop the deaths. There have been cases where the students and/or the teachers top the assailant before excessive harm is done. Such an example is Yitzhak Dadon, at the Mercaz HaRav Massacre (. http://www.jpost.com...). He, a student, utilised his handgun to stop the attacker in this scenario. Furthermore, Yitzhak is a 40 year old man, which places him closer to the roel of teacher than student. In the Pearl High School shooting, the assistant principal used his handgun to subdue an attacker who killed 2 and injured 7. However, it took him 5 minutes to reach his car to get his gun because of the Gun Free Zone in the school (. http://www.cnn.com...). The above cases support my case that giving teachers the right to have handguns in school is more beneficial than negative.
Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school.

I stand in negation of this act, taking in mind that the safety and well being of students will be unbalanced. Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions.