BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

though normally a five round debate would promise to be exausting I already know from your history that you do not have the integrety to finish even two rounds of a debate.mabye this will be a brake in trend for you though I think optimistically (and foolishly) so I accapt this debate since your its a very simple case that refutes your position.your problem with youth being able to get a GED seems primarly because there freedom too is abused and the standards for a GED are lower than actually finishing school.by that logic you could be in support of raising the standards that it takes to get a GED to the level it is for completeing school, or you should be ...... well thats it really, theres no other logical end to that starting point.its actually offensive kinda (for youth) that you think they have to be put through more to treated the same way an old person is who did less to get there GED.if a person makes the mistake of dropping out of high school, there should be no time limit on when there allowed to start turning around and getting there life back on track. what were you hopping to do making a GED only for old people? High School dropouts have to stay on welfare until they reach age....what 30 before they go get there GED so they can apply for work that requires one or a colledge that has one or a high school diploma?I demand an answer to that question if it would please you enough to bother giving at least one response in this debate that you started.
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

Thank you very much for honoring me with finishing this debate with me.and yes...I'm aware I make typos."I'm not being mean spirited or trying to punish"Interesting while you strait up deny thats the purpose behind disqualifying young people from being able to get there G.E.D. if they drop out of high school you dont actually offer an alternative reason behind doing this. the most you have said all debate is "they just shouldnt" which is in effect just saying 'because I said so'you cant give a reason though because there is no productive purpose to your plan besides a punishing effect to hold G.E.Ds away from drop-outs until there 'old enough' in your eyes to fix there lives."not all have sad story's....but yes, unfortunately there are those....."the only justification you have given all debate has been based on the fact that there are those who abuse the current system because they are lazy and dont like school. I point out the existence of cases that are not like that you did not deny there are cases out there yet you still just chose to brush the point aside without even giving a explination. Had you said something like "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few" that would have been one thing, but you did not even give that. you bascially just admited "yes I am screwing over those out there whos life circumstances drove them to drop out, but as long as we can force the lazy people too go to school I dont care."So in conclusion G.E.D.'s should not be changed to be just for old people (21 and over) as doing this would.......not be productive...cause needless harm...serves no purpose but an emotional one for yourself....and causes absolutely no good.now to that last one you might be thinking "but it would remove an easy out for the lazy people, thats a good". But is it? It may make you feel like things are fairer personally, but you fundamentally cant help people who just dont want to help themselves, and if you manage to successfully hold them inside the school its still not going to change that truth.You approach this whole issue with the wrong people to consider when deciding the policy on this. you have looked at this issue thinking first and only of the students who are not yet but could become drop-outs. But the people who deserve your attention first in this issue are those who being a drop out is already a done deal for, the desion was made and now they are discovering there are new sets of choices they need to make about the rest of there lives.with there best intrest at heart, ask yourself how does this help them, and if it does not help them, is it even helping you? with there best intrest at heart, ask yourself since they droped out in past already, now that they cant go back to high school what is it I want them to do first? does it help them on any level to make them wait until there 21 to do that thing they should do first?
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

no way is it "mean spirited". mean spirited would be like saying " GED programs should be eliminated completely." plus not every kid has a sad story to fall on. some kids are just bad and lazy. they don't want to go to school so they just take the easy way out. and I'm not even trying to be judgmental. that's just how things are. if i wanted to punish, i would make it much harder for them to finish compared to someone who had no choice but to take their GED. and yes, unfortunately there are those who drop out of school due to family issues as the one you mentioned. and im not sure if you notice your typos but: criticize* criticism* sufficiently* sufficient* explanation* discouraged* depressed* well it was nice debating with you.
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

haha really? out of all resources you use wikipedia? good choice. and yes GED should only be for those who aren't of age to be in high school anymore. i believe the cut off age is 21. so that is plenty of time to get the extra help that they need to prevent them from dropping out. teens these days are too lazy to even use the resources they have inside of their schools, so why all of a sudden use it when they have dropped out? not liking school shouldn't be a reason for any kid to drop out of school.
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

perhaps you dont feel comfertable using the term 'old people' in your rhetoric as you do with saying 'older people' (I dont understand why) but it doesnt matter, either way the pro of the resolution "GED should only be for those who are older an...." is still an exclusive status for people of a certain age to be able to get a GED.somewhere you draw a line in age (lets say 18, but in principal it does not matter where). For those above whatever the paticular line you draw, I will refer to in this debate as the old people (even if there just one year above the line like 19) and those below it as young people. "It should only be for...." in the resolution means you want eliminate the GED as an option for those under whatever age range you set as not being 'older people'. This means if a young 16 year old runs with bad crowd and makes the great mistake of dropping out, you would hold them to wait 2 years before there ever allowed to get there life back on track. or higher if what you count as not 'older people' is higher than 18. Our desire for the dropouts I think we can agree is to get there life turned around as fast as possible and thus if they have droped out of school we of course would be encuraging them to try an earn a GED as soon as possible. there vary livelyhood may depend on having one on there reseme and while you may be comfertable wait to get a job that requires at least a GED or High School diploma for whatever amount of time you set, they might be in a financle situation where they would be comfertable with that.Now before you start with "oh but I'm not saying any of that....." and ".....just want the GED's to be harder" I would like to point you to the resolution one more time. we are not the Pro and Con to a debate resolution that reads "the standards needed to get a GED should be raised", we are in a debate to argue the Pro and Con sides of the resolution "GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country"I have been looking for an oportunity to drop a related source and here I have one http://en.wikipedia.org...
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

exactly! i did not say anything about "old people", i said "older people". older is completely different from just being old. there are many people who come from other countries that come to the United States after their 20s or 30s. so you cant just assume that because i wrote the word "older", it is only applying to those who are old. plus just because i agree with you at a certain point in this debate, doesn't mean my argument can be thrown out. and i bet that if standards for GED were higher, many high school drop outs would rather not do it. that was the whole point of them dropping out of school to begin with. they hate school, hate having "a lot" of work to do, and they most likely hate authority. and to be honest if i were to have been a high school drop out, i would not have wanted to do GED if it was the same as high school. and you know that you wouldn't either
End of world is so soon

you copy and past tring to make sense :D you said: Critics claim that these verses contradicts the scientific notion that man descended from a common ancestor with apes.[10][11] this is my theory , apes were humans http://quran.com... this is for you . http://quran.com... you didn't prove anything, what is this? http://quran.com... Allah created Adam ,so simple ,i don't see what is your point . you're stupid when you say "As you can see while The Koran was proven wrong " LoL , what a loser ,you didn't prove anything wrong because Quran is perfect. you said "the Qur'an also states that God created every living thing from/of water 21:30 24:45" are you dumb ? wihout watter ,there is no life. you said "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." (18:86)" he saw his photo and the photo of sun in watter This is the first of the three episodes here mentioned, his expedition to the west. "Reaching the setting of the sun" does not mean the extreme west, for there is no such thing. West and East are relative terms. It means a western expedition terminated by a "spring of murky water." This has puzzled Commentators, and they have understood this to mean the dark, tempestuous sea. If Dhul al Qarnayn is Alexander the Great, the reference is easily understood to be to Lychnitis (now Ochrida), west of Macedonia. It is fed entirely by underground springs in a limestone region, where the water is never very clear. check this maybit will help you to clean your washed brain http://anti-brainwash.overblog.com...
End of world is so soon

I am guessing the meaning of so soon in your sentence is near.-My role to prove that it is further into the future.-you sent a link holding the contents of the Quran.-Let me start off by saying the Koran and the Bible contradict each other through the following scriptures.- The story of Cain and AbelAfter Cain killed his brother Abel, The Quran says that "Allah sent a raven who scratched the ground to show him how to hide the shame of his brother." Surah 5:31. This is not mentioned in the Bible.The story of Noah and the floodThe Quran in Surah 11:42 & 43 says that one of the sons of Noah refused to go into the Ark and was drowned in the flood, while the Bible says that all three sons of Noah went into the Ark with him and were saved from the flood (Genesis 7:7).In Surah 11:44 the Quran says that the Ark came to rest on top of mount Judi, While the Bible says that it was Mount Ararat (Genesis 8:4).The Story of Abraham Abraham's father, according to the Quran, is Azar (Surah 6:74), while the Bible says that his name was Terah (Genesis 11:26). The Quran says Abraham had two sons, the Bible says they were eight. The Quran says some of Abraham's descendants lived in the valley of Mecca (Surah 14:37),while the Bible says they lived in Hebron (Genesis 13:18). The Quran says that Abraham had two wives, in the Bible he had three. The Quran says that he built the Kaaba (Surah 2:125-127). The Bible has no record of that. The story of Moses The Quran states that the one who adopted Moses was Pharaoh's wife (Surah 28:9), While the Bible says it was Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5) The Quran states that Haman lived in Egypt during Moses' time (Surah 28:6), while the Bible says that Haman lived in Persia during King Ahasuerus time (Esther 3:1). The story of Mary (the mother of Jesus) The Quran states that her brother was Aaron (Surah 19:28), while the Bible says that Aaron lived 1300 years before Mary (Numbers 26:59). That she gave birth to Jesus under a palm tree (Surah 19:23),while the Bible says it was in a stable (Luke 2:7). That Jesus spoke and made miracles at the time he was a baby (Surah 19:24-26). The Bible has no record of that. That Zacharias could not speak for three nights (Surah 19:10), while the Bible says he could not speak until the child was born (or for about 9 months) Luke 1:20.-Meaning it is not enough proof to take scriptures in the Koran to decide that the end of the world is so soon.Plus the link does not translate in anymeans the terrorist israel that was built in the year 1948.-I admit to start with a decent argument to see if Pro is actually serious about this.
The United States lost the War of 1812

I'm pretty new and forgot to mention it, sorry. The reasons for declaring war was over impressment, the act of kidnapping men and enslaving them on foreign ships, the British trade restrictions, which the United States felt violated their neutral rights, and the alleged aid given to the Native Americans. American war goal was to defeat the British in Canada and force concessions over those violations to American sovereignty and rights. Britain's main war goal was the defense of Canada and their secondary objective was to establish a Indian buffer state. My reasoning for the United States losing the war is based these things. 1. The United States suffered more casualties fighting a smaller force. The United States lost an estimated 15,000 from all causes, 2,200 in combat, 4,505 wounded. The British lost 1,600 in action, 3,321 from disease, and 3,679 wounded. When tallied the British inflicted more casualties on the United States then suffered. 2. The British also won more battles against the United States than lost. American invasions of Canada were defeated and ended up with the occupations of most of the Michigan territory, Maine and the occupation of Washington DC and then the British left after burning it down. 3. The United States gained none of the changes in British policy it set out to win, it failed to achieve its military objective, and damaged to the country"s commerce. The United States fought a war to force the British to cease their maritime policies of impressment and the trade restrictions. Britain was not forced to end those policies, France was defeated and Britain no longer needed to enforce their policies. The United States objective to force the British to the negotiating table by taking Canada was not achieved and instead they lost 40,000 square km themselves. The attempt to stop British trade restrictions by going to war brought about a blockade throughout most of the United States' coast and our oversea commerce tanked. Britain being in a much larger war in Europe forced the British to fight a more defensive war in North America. In the end, Britain protected their possessions in North America, captured enemy territory and kept it until the end of the war, damaged their enemy's commerce, won more battles, and killed more enemy soldiers. The treaty of Ghent did not resolve the main grievances that brought about the American declaration of war, it did however set everything to pre war conditions. Britain being war weary for over 20 years war is what saved the United States from the full might of the British Empire after France was defeated. . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://en.wikipedia.org...
'Up' is Not a Good Children's Movie

"(By the way, I see what you're trying to do. It isn't going to work with me.)" I'm not *trying to do* anything, dude. I'm not some sinister debater whose actually trying to deceive you and claim victory in this debate. I'm not that stupid. You're taking this way too seriously. I'm kidding, you fat smogglenut. "I still don't remember any of the issues you mentioned being in the movie. Again I ask for more specific examples." Well, for one, during the middle of the movie, (I believe Scene 14), the little boy has a substance abuse problem, and the old man becomes an alcoholic. However, through perseverance and attendance at their local mosque, they're both able to summon the courage to overcome their respective addictions (http://en.wikipedia.org...(Manhattan_Project). As for teenage pregnancy, it is clearly alluded to when the old man says, "My teenage daughter is pregnant. This is a serious issue, and we need to be responsible about it" (http://en.wikipedia.org....). In one part, the fat guy punches a fat kid in the throat. That is clearly child abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org...). "Anyway, with all due respect, my friend, who are you to say that those topics are suitable for a child audience? That idea is merely based on immoral assumptions given to you by society. On the contrary, I believe those are very unimportant and irrelevant issues for growing children." Okay, that's not refuting my point. My point was that you can't make these seemingly objective moral statements (like "sex isn't a suitable topic for kids") that are at best anachronistic and at worst backward, detrimental and close-minded. These topics are natural parts of humanity and society, and just because you personally have outdated "traditional" (ignorant) views on things like drugs, sex, and child abuse doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed in a children's movie. "What was the fat guy's name?" Harold Balducci (http://en.wikipedia.org...). "His parents would not be happy." Mine would. In closing, I'd like to reiterate my point that you are a snobrunaga.
'Up' is Not a Good Children's Movie

Thank you Conor, for your quick response. I apologize that my own response has not been as quick, but I have been uncertain as to how I should respond. (By the way, I see what you're trying to do. It isn't going to work with me.) Conor said: " With all due respect, my friend, who are you to say that those topics aren't suitable for a child audience? That idea is merely based on moral assumptions given you by society. On the contrary, I believe those are very important and (although not necessarily applicable) relevant issues for growing children." I still don't remember any of the issues you mentioned being in the movie. Again I ask for more specific examples. Anyway, with all due respect, my friend, who are you to say that those topics are suitable for a child audience? That idea is merely based on immoral assumptions given to you by society. On the contrary, I believe those are very unimportant and irrelevant issues for growing children. Conor said: "For example, when the fat guy says, "You're stupid," I think we can agree that was by far one of the most humorous incidences in the movie, and the fact that the fat guy said it over 24 times throughout the movie made it even funnier." I don't remember any fat guy repeatedly saying 'You're stupid' anywhere in the movie. What was the fat guy's name? Anyway, I hardly think such a line would be funny. It would be very bad for a five-year-old to hear it said repeatedly. Then he would start saying 'you're stupid' at every opportunity. His parents would not be happy. Conor said: "Although this short interlude in the movie might evoke sadness in your personally, a poll shows that 78% of "Up" watchers found this sequence to be the most humorous and well-executed part of the movie (http://en.wikipedia.org......). Children and adults alike in the theatre even stood up and applauded as they saw blood spill out of the innocent man's head (http://en.wikipedia.org......)." I believe you are taking your sources somewhat out of context. My opponent has not addressed any of my other arguments. I thank my opponent for this intriguing debate. I leave the final say to him.
'Up' is Not a Good Children's Movie

"I believe that topics such as child abuse and teenage pregnancy aren't really suitable for audiences ages 2-14." With all due respect, my friend, who are you to say that those topics aren't suitable for a child audience? That idea is merely based on moral assumptions given you by society. On the contrary, I believe those are very important and (although not necessarily applicable) relevant issues for growing children. Seeing as "Up" addresses all of these issues, I believe it is a very good movie, and it's educating themes are all supplemented with its good use of humor. For example, when the fat guy says, "You're stupid," I think we can agree that was by far one of the most humorous incidences in the movie, and the fact that the fat guy said it over 24 times throughout the movie made it even funnier. "In their old age, the couple eventually conjures up enough money to go to Paradise Falls, (oh, here's the good part) but then Ellie dies. Yup, after all those years of saving and turmoil, she just dies, leaving a heartbroken Carl all alone. Cue regretful, melancholy music. After Carl's wife dies, a truck knocks of his mailbox, and a guy tries to fix it. Carl doesn't like him touching his mailbox, so he whacks the guy over the head with his cane, drawing blood. Then Carl is summoned to court and evicted from his house as a public menace." Although this short interlude in the movie might evoke sadness in your personally, a poll shows that 78% of "Up" watchers found this sequence to be the most humorous and well-executed part of the movie (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Children and adults alike in the theatre even stood up and applauded as they saw blood spill out of the innocent man's head (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Thank you. Good luck, dude.
'Up' is Not a Good Children's Movie

After debating a cheerful topic like abortion, I think I could use a brief rest from the heavy-duty debates. Anyway, I stand in affirmation that Up, the recent movie released by Disney, is not a good children's movie. I am a lover of facts and logic, so I intend to prove my point by using both. Allow me to clarify my intentions with the following definitions. Good: conforming to set standards; suitable, sufficient or satisfactory (My own definition) Children's movie: a movie created specifically for viewing by audiences ages 2-14 I leave it to my opponent to begin the argument. Good luck.