BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More Middle Schools should have debate clubs

Anyway, I think that it is too early for them in order to participate on debate. For example, you are 20 years old man and in your debate statistics; it is your first time of debating. It indicates that you started to debate only on high age. Also, in this site we cannot find debaters from middle classes. Actually, they do not have experience and ability of debater, that is why debate in middle classes can cause a conflict between classmates. Also you know that at that age they do not know how to express opinions in a proper way, because it is important. Realistically, even one wrong expressing of opinion can hurt the opponents. Another point is debate can take a lot of time to research the topic of the debate. That is why it hinders pupils to study their own schools subjects properly. After the elementary schools, they should learn subjects by hard way, because middle classes are very significant period of school, to prepare to the next high classes. Also, I hope that you studied at middle school. And at that time, did you want to debate with someone, and waste you valuable time. I don`t think so, because at that age all we want to have entertainment and fun. Clearly, I want to write that in the future there is a time for them in order to debate, but at middle schools, it is too early.
More Middle Schools should have debate clubs

My opponent has some major flaws in their argument. They asked about the benefit for children. The benefit is a fun club which can help them academically. Debate clubs help children engage in interesting discussions that they can't stop talking about. It is also a fun and exciting experience. Overall there are many benefits such as the ones I just pointed out. As to the real world argument, I believe by Middle School they should be more questioning. I think at that age they're ready to begin transitioning from the definite right and wrong, which they learnt in Elementary School to beginning to question what really is right and wrong. I don't think it would send mixed messages at all and if anything Middle School Debate Clubs would help students in Middle School learn more about the real world. They might have a very strong opinion one way, but by the end of the debate, they may think something different. Through this Middle School students can actually understand the real world more rather than less, and it helps them see how there are two sides to everything. Overall, I think Middle School students can receive have real world benefit out of debate clubs. Finally, as to lack of information, firstly I think Middle School students probably already know a lot more information than stated in my opponent's argument. Many Middle School students watch the news and know about current affairs both in their own country and abroad. I think a lot of Middle School Students have enough information to debate with. For those that don't either the teacher supervising can do a five minute objective lecture at the beginning to give them some helpful information. This would work if it was informal/discussion debate. If it was a formal debate club, then to write the speeches Middle School students would be forced to research some examples. Either way the students would have a sufficient amount of information to have a good debate. Overall I believe that there should be Middle School Debate Clubs. There were several problems with my opponent's argument. Middle School Debate Clubs would help prepare students for high school debate teams and help students academically and intellectually. Overall, more Middle Schools should have debate clubs as the advantages far outweigh any possible disadvantage.
The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres

Fiirstly, please be advised that I am an equal opportunities debater and this challenge may be accepted by any member regardless of their age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender although contributions from young Asian bi-curious women are particularly welcome as they are under-represented on this site. Now, here is my opening argument: Churches make money by cynically exploiting the fears, prejudices and insecurities of their congregations: but there's nothing illegal about that; that's capitalism. However, unlike most other organisations, churches do not pay tax on their profits. If they did, though, the income raised could, and should, be ring-fenced by the government and used to fund women-only, lesbian-friendly drop-in centres that could provide free or subsidised: * Feminist-orientated assertiveness training courses * On-site cafï¿½s serving vegan wholefood dishes, Free Trade herbal teas and sustainably-sourced organic wines * Multi-ethnic women's rights awareness meetings * In-house spas providing holistic therapy treatments using only cruelty-free, carbon-neutral cosmetic products * Lesbian and bi-sexual bonding sessions * Clinics providing free contraception and abortions-on-demand for victims of male sexual oppression These drop-in centres would give women much-needed non-judgemental, eco-friendly, multicultural, ethically-aware refuges where they could find sanctuary from the conservative and regressive social doctrines that dominate mainstream society and perpetuate the exploitation of women by men. Furthermore, this scheme would be wholly in keeping with the Christian ethos of giving alms to strangers and would, therefore, command the full support of the preachers, pastors, vicars and priests who represent the various churches and who, in the true spirit of Christianity, would be delighted to forgo such worldly decadences as luxury cars and houses in order to support women in need. That's why the government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres. Thank you.
Communism in general is far worse than capitalism

Communism is the repression of the masses, the government control of all means of production. Communism has always brought famine, war and fear to the people it was initially made to guard. Communism as well as socialism are systems in which the people suffer and their freedoms taken, time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so. As Ludwig von Mises proved, pure communism is all but impossible. Communism may have good intentions, but in the real world intentions mean nothing all that matters is the pure and simple results of a system. Capitalism has brought freedom, low prices, equality, peace, wealth, prosperity, less poor people than the amounts found in communist and socialist nations, and far far far more production than could ever be achieved by a communist or socialist state. Now before you hopefully respond, I would like to add, that the current system failures in the USA are most certainly not a product of capitalism, but a product of corporatism. Corporatism is the use and steering of the government by private companies, that is not what capitalism is. True capitalism would mean a complete separation of government control over means of products, true capitalism would mean near everything was privately owned, and true competition could exist.
Jessica's Law

To make things perfectly clear, no law is perfect; No law ever will be. So now that we have that out of the way lets get down to business. No proscutor in their right mind would just use a child as their only type of evidence that a crime actually occured. There is a reason why we have rape kits, for DNA. You also have to put in place what I said before; if you are put in fornt of a jury of your peers then there is sifficent evidence to put you in that court room. Not all offences are put under 25 years to life. Jessica law is there to implement that this is what faces you if you commit an act of sexual aggression torwards a child. It sounds to me that you want to make sentences a little easier on those who predator children. When you go to prison its not suppose to be fun or easy, or in another case say hey I only got seven years for raping a child.
Jessica's Law

Dept of justice did a study in 1997 of recidivism (the tendency to re-commit a crime). They released 243,000 people from prison in 15 states. Of those 67% were arrested again for the same or similar charges within 3 years. In the same year there were 4,300 sexual predators released from the same 15 states. Of them, only 3% have been arrested again for any crime. Don't get me wrong, I'd like that number to be 0%, but the reality is that the actual rate of recidivism is incredibly good for sexual predators. Much better then it is for drug dealers, gang bangers, or any other criminals. Part of the reason for this is I believe is because they are very highly supervised upon their release. The problem with Jessica's law is that it is already difficult enough to get a conviction in most of these cases. The primary witness in a case like this is a child, and any attorney will tell you they don't make very good witnesses. Not to mention more often then not the accused is a family member a father, an uncle or a boyfriend. Many times the parent don't even want to put their children though the pain of having to take the stand. Prosecutors know this, which is why very often in these cases they try to reach a plea bargain with the defendant. With Jessica's Law however, there can be no plea bargain. That leaves the defendent with two choices, plead guilty and get 25 years, or fight it and maybe get off, maybe get 25 years, so they'll fight it every time. It stands to reason that the more often they fight the charges the more often they will win. Not to mention this doesn't prevent prosecuters from charging the guy with some lesser charge, like regular old child battery which is a much lighter sentence and doesn't come with the same supervision as a sexual charge would come with. I guarentee in states that pass Jessica's law you will begin to see a number of things happen over the next 5 years. 1. the number of these cases happening will stay about the same. 2. the number of people charged with the crime of brutal child molestation will go down, not because it isn't happening, but because prosecutors won't bother charging people with it. 3. of the number of people actually charged with the crime, the % of those convicted will go down. The same people who would be getting off to easy before will still be getting off to easy now, possibly even easier with no supervision. All this law will do is introduce another level of complexity to an already over worked justice system. We have judges because we the people can't sit down and listen to every detail of every criminal case. To many people in this country think they can sit down and listen to a 5 paragraph summary of a case from Bill O'Reilly and make a better decision then that of a professional who's JOB it is to deal with this type of thing every day. Manditory minimums solve nothing. They create more problems then they solve.
Jessica's Law

When you are put in front of a jury of your peers, there is usually enough evidence to suggest that you did indeed commit the crime. Jessica law was put in place to make sure sex offenders stayed behind bars. Now the reason for this is simple, they cannot be fixed, its a disease. Their sex drive is different then normal adults. This high level of sentence is put in place to keep them in Prison. As you might know most felons with good behavior could get out with 70% of their sentence completed; Then they are registered as a sex offender. There is always a min in the justice system like you said no matter what the crime, however when it comes to our children we need the best protection the law offers.
Jessica's Law

Jessica's law forces every single person charged with brutal child molestation into one of two categories. Mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison, or innocent. The reality is that most of these people probably deserve something in the way of 7-15 years depending on all the factors, which is what they were getting prior to Jessica's Law. There will always be a few people who get off lighter then they diserve no matter what the crime is, but mandatory minimums will actually make the problem worse.
Fascism is a superior form of rule than theocracy

My argument is that theocracy is a superior form of government than Fascism. A Theocracy can work as long as all have an objective way to learn about God. For example, Moses is an example of a Theocratic leader and proved that God was his authority by doing miracles. Theocracy in ancient Israel was very strict in it's regulations and form of rule. Everyone should have access to the Bible in which God can speak to the people in order to prevent corruption. With an outline of commandments to follow in the Bible, the leader cannot justify his selfish actions.
Students who cheat at school/univertsity acquire more useful skills than those who do not

This debate is about whether students who cheat at school/university acquire more useful skills than those who do not. In order to satisfy his burden of proof, pro has to make arguments which show that "students who cheat" wind up acquiring more useful skills than those who do not. On con, all I have to do is show how students who cheat do not acquire more useful skills. 1. Pro fails to advance his burden of proof. Pro has totally failed to make an argument in support of the resolution. First, pro has not given any indication for or criteria of what counts as a 'useful skill'. Second, pro has provided neither evidence nor analysis regarding what makes skills useful. Third, pro has not meaningfully talked about what skills students who cheat, acquire. Fourth, pro has not compared the skill sets of students who cheat to those who do not, and has not shown that any of the skills he claims cheaters learn are unique to cheaters. So, I win by default in that respect alone because PRO has not advanced his burden. 2. Cheating does not teach you useful skills. An important life skill is the ability to work hard and remain self disciplined. Cheating is a short cut, and a person who gets away with taking short cuts does not learn how to work hard and remain self disciplined. What cheating teaches you how to do is to take shortcuts, with the result of avoiding learning. For example, a cheater on a math test may be able to pass the math test and walk out of the classroom ignorant of what he was tested on. Therefore, the cheater has not learned how to do math, but only how to cheat on the test. Working hard and remaining self disciplined are more useful skills than taking shortcuts. Likewise, even if a cheater learns how to take shortcuts, that doesn't mean that someone who doesn't cheat wouldn't figure out how to take shortcuts. In all cases, the cheater is at a disadvantage. The resolution is negated.
Students who cheat at school/univertsity acquire more useful skills than those who do not

It's pretty obvious that at every place - be it a school, a university or a course in a particular subject - which aims at teaching something, students may be roughly divided into diligent ones and not so. It is also a fact that students from both groups graduate from their educational institution and go on with their life ready to apply the knowledge and skills they have got whenever possible. Speaking of skills... While diligent student are struggling to meet deadlines on educational tasks (projects, homework, etc.), not-so-ones are struggling to invent new ways of avoiding them, postponing them and perhaps even successfully not having to meet them at all. While diligent students are cramming for an exam, not-so-ones are enjoying themselves, then just to crib everything from notes hidden in a sock/pocket, to make an examiner believe they are ready by a small show of a good answer in front of him and eventually by passing an exam, most likely. That's for example. And while diligent students are worrying about their studies, the not-so-ones are having a good time, for there is always another way of 'coping' with the tasks. In the end the most hard-working from the first group and the most adapted from the second successfully graduate, getting roughly the same certificates. But our prominent adapted ones get something else, perhaps even more useful than a certificate. They say, the strongest survive, meaning actually - the most adapted survive. Cunning, the ability to turn off conscience for a while, the ability to lie with a straight face for the sake of succeeding, the ability to avoid undesired work, to negotiate with people - these skills are pretty helpful in life, aren't they?
It is most likely that Justin Bieber is my (Koopin) Sister.

-"You say 'It is also just as likely that she is not your sister' This is wrong. "- your statement about my statement being wrong is wrong itself. -"You have not given any proof that Justin Bieber is not my sister" + "I have not given any solid prof that Justin Bieber is my sister. "- Therefore we are even on this point. A debate is not about who is "most likely" right. . its about who can post the most swaying evidence to support their idea. We both have nothing so we are even. -" I have claimed that she is my sister. Therefore it is most likely that she is. "- unless we go with the fact that bieber is in fact a guy. .. -"You can not prove she is not my sister"- If any of the viewers have any common sense. . i dont think i have too :P. -"Chuck Norris is irrelevant to this debate. "- Chuck norris is irrelevent to NOTHING.
It is most likely that Justin Bieber is my (Koopin) Sister.

Thank you for posting your next argument. You say 'It is also just as likely that she is not your sister' This is wrong. You have failed to give a reason why she is not my sister before round 3. Now, let us look a the facts so far. 1. You have not given any proof that Justin Bieber is not my sister 2. I have not given any solid prof that Justin Bieber is my sister. 3. I have claimed that she is my sister. Therefore it is most likely that she is. 4. You can not prove she is not my sister. 5. Justin Bieber even admitted that she was my sister in the Indian book of Limes (2008). Chuck Norris is irrelevant to this debate. Thank you.
It is most likely that Justin Bieber is my (Koopin) Sister.

-"I can not prove that Justin is my sister, but I can prove that I am typing this debate."- O RLY? -"But it is most likely that Justin Bieber, is my sister."- It is also just as likely that she is not your sister (no i do not deny the women factor) -" Because I said so"- Its >>>bcuzisedso<<< -"I say Justin Bieber is my sister"- Just as i have said chuck norris is my sister in past debates.. -"If Obama says he owns two blue shoes, and then McCain (who has never been in Obama's house) says Obama does not own the shoes, who is the one to be believed?" I do belive that when this happens secretly chuck norris decides. -"Justin Bieber sounds like a girl, smells like a girl, sings like a girl, and talks like a girl. Therefore, he must be a she."- Now this i cant disprove sadly.. -As the tree once said to the iguana.. "I look forward to your response"
It is most likely that Justin Bieber is my (Koopin) Sister.

Thank you for taking this debate. You say that I am hallucinating, this is an absolute statement that can not be proven. I believe you are saying that I am hallucinating because of the Kool-aid milk I made (video 1). That video was filmed many days before now, so I would not be effected still. I can not prove that Justin is my sister, but I can prove that I am typing this debate. But it is most likely that Justin Bieber, is my sister. Here are the reasons. 1. Because I said so. If Obama says he owns two blue shoes, and then McCain (who has never been in Obama's house) says Obama does not own the shoes, who is the one to be believed? Obama of courses because he is making a statement about himself. Same thing with me, I say Justin Bieber is my sister, so it is most likely that he is. 2. Justin Bieber sounds like a girl, smells like a girl, sings like a girl, and talks like a girl. Therefore, he must be a she. 3. Justin Bieber even stated, "I am Koopin's sister from Debate.org" [2] You can not prove this statement wrong. I look forward to your response. http://www.youtube.com... Sources: (1). Youtube Video (2). Indian book of Limes (2008) (3). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

As pro in this argument I took the stance that GM foods are safe for human consumption, reduce pesticide, increase yield and decrease cost, combat global warming an diseases that attack crops. This was an ambitious load, and each topic would deserve a debate on it's own, as in the cases of food waste and global warming I can show real world examples of GM research that would assist in bettering the scenarios, however they do not entirely resolve the issue. As far as the safety of GM foods con did stick to his point that GMO's are a danger, but at no point did he specifically address which GMO was causing a problem or how it was effecting the person. As pro I maintain my position and would like to leave you with a few statements: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, "The science is quite clear; crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." The World Health Organization, "No effects on human health have been shown as the result of consumption of GM foods by the general population in countries where they've been approved." There are several more, but i don't want to fill this with quotes. These quotes would be empty if there were no evidence that they'd been tested for safety, happily for them there are thousands of papers on GMOs, many of which are safety evaluations, to see more of what our top science organizations have to say on the subject, as well as numerous safety studies all gathered into one area follow this link. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com...
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

For the sake of delivering you a return for your efforts - I am new to this site, yet feel an opportunity to "pay if forward" and take the opposing stance to somebody who has a yearn to debate a certain topic. I pride myself in having an ability to discuss any topic man can conjure, and have really worked myself to develop an understanding of balance within the world - so out of good faith, and for the spirit/sake of debate - I accept your challenge, and take the stance of Con in the topic at hand. The Con will interpret definitions of the topic for it's argument as: 1. G.M.O's - Genetically Modified Organisms which are Organisms constructed, using genetic engineering, with a modified genome. The Con will argue that: GMO's are detrimental to the health of the human body, has led to scientific-political practices that are not promoting our civil liberties, the cost of yield does not need to be affected since that is not the root of the problem (food wasting practices are), GMO's inevitably lead to a new evolution of the diseases that attack crops, and global warming will receive no real benefit from GMO's. Respectfully, BJ Myers p.s. - I am very eager to see this debate unfold. I really enjoy seeing somebody express themselves when driven by passion, and I see that (since you are eager to have this debate) you will not disappoint. Good luck, and I look forward to sharing information and ideas with you.
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

I am pro GMO in this argument as I believe it to be a safe and effective method to address many problems including, reducing the amount of pesticides are used in agriculture, increasing yield and decreasing costs, combating global warming and diseases that attack the crop. This is a 4 round debate, the opening round is for acceptance and a short statement on your position(optional). Please only accept if you are going to dedicate to this debate. Cite all sources, be prepared to define terms, let's try to stay away from analogies and let's be civil.