BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chewing gum and headphones should be allowed in lessons

Thank-you for accepting, I hope this debate will be a well discussed topic that will contain a load of opinions and interesting facts. Good luck. First of all, I would like to mention a few of the very many amount of benefits from having chewing gum in class. Gum helps children stay quiet in lessons because it keeps their mouths occupied, this allows them to think instead of talk and distract the lesson. Also, it has been proven that chewing gun speeds up reading. http://www.spreeder.com... claims that the one of the reasons why people read slowly is because of 'internal voice', a delay in which the mouth must move as the reader reads. Chewing gum occupies the mouth, this allowing faster reading times without the habit of internal voice. Reading faster would benefit students because they would be able to complete work fast and learn more. Students can discard nervous energy by chewing gum. This would help students because they would be able to focus easily in stressful times; such as a test or a controlled assessment. Also, so long as they chew quietly, chewing gum could avoid class distractions where as tapping a pencil or foot, or chewing fingernails could be more distracting. The only problem with chewing gum in class is that teachers are afraid they will put the used gum under the desks or on the chairs; so long as students do not put chewing gum on furniture or carpet I truly do not see a problem with chewing gun in class. http://www.educationworld.com... About the headphones, personally I noticed music can help me focus on my work and block out distractions going on in the class. I think its okay during independent work such as tests, quizzes or when a teacher gives you a paper to do. Music will persuade students to do their work because they will have the encouragement of their music. They will be listening to their favourite music which would make school lessons and learning go by quicker and sound more appealing to do. Lessons would be considered as study time instead of long lectures. I know many students find this helpful while working and it allows them to focus in their own mind whilst having something they enjoy to add to the work. We all have those kids in our class that create some sort of distraction and I think it would be helpful to allow music in classes. Con should keep in mind that this topic is an opinion.
Chewing gum and headphones should be allowed in lessons

I accept. I will argue against the allowance of headphones and gum in classes. Voters should note that there is a 4,000 character limit so arguments may not be as in depth as possible Some definitions also before we start. Chewing gum: Flavored gum for chewing typically sold in packets of individualy wrapped thin strips. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Headphones: A pair of earphones typically joined by a band laced over the head for listening to audio signals such as music or speech http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I look forward to my opponents opening arguments
There is no evidence, and no tenable arguements, for the existence of any gods.

No evidence has been presented to humanity that either singularly or in combination conclusively proves the existence of any gods. Further, philosophical arguments for the existence of gods are untenable, and cannot result in a rational acceptance of the existence of any gods. All tangible evidence for the existence of gods can be explained by natural means. All philosophical arguments for the existence of gods do not hold up under scrutiny and rational exploration of their tenents. Thus, it requires not just a simple blind faith to believe in a god, but a faith that must systematically oppose the realities of human knowledge and understanding, as well as rational awareness. Ultimately, one must adopt a position of accepting the rationale, and admitting a faith in one's beliefs in spite of it.
The Jesuits (Society of Jesus)

Match, set and point! You have lost the debate on three aspects of equally paramount importance. 1. You don't answer the definition, standards or voter of my topicality argument. This means that my advocate is infinitely more topical and reasonable than yours because they are THE religious order, not just A religious order. You lose the round on this issue alone because there was an independent voter you never answered. 2. You don't even make any claims on the policy level. You grant that the swiss guard are in fact the greatest religious institution and try to answer that with a weak topicality claim. The pope would always prefer the swiss guard because of their advantages. 3. The critical level goes untouched. As an outside observer, you must vote for the swiss guard because they are under-appreciated. For the sake of justice, all ballots must be in favor of the swiss guard. I hope you enjoyed the debate!
The Jesuits (Society of Jesus)

I think what you're saying is funny, but I was hoping for a legitimate argument. Unless, you are serious; then you have a problem. The Swiss Guard is not a religious order. They were not founded as a religious group, but as a league of mercenaries to guard foreign courts. They are still active, but only in the Vatican. The fact that they work in the Vatican does not make them a religious order. Same goes for their vows (if they really take them, which I doubt). Their sole purpose is secular: to protect whatever it is they are guarding.
The Jesuits (Society of Jesus)

Wrong again! The swiss guard are the definition of religious ORDER! They aren't just A religious order, they are THE religious order. My definition is intrinsically better because of grammatical precission, competitive equity, reasonability and education. Place an independent voter on this issue in today's debate round. The Jesuits are just a bunch of social progressives who would've been nuclear-suicide bombed to death centuries ago by the liberal-hippie-fascist-gay-communist-islamic-nazi-klingon terrorists if it weren't for the constant overwatch of the swiss guard. No other group can even hold a candle to them! They have the power to end all sadness in the world. The only reason they haven't is that they are under direct orders from God not to because it would ruin the existential balance in the world. The Jesuits only have vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The swiss guard have vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, hedgemony, metalurgy and literacy. Additionally, they abstain from eating, drinking, and breathing. The Jesuits can forgive sins, offer the Mass, baptise and give last rites. The swiss guard can do all that, AND validate parking! The Jesuits may be pretty cool, but do you really think that the come anywhere close to SG units?
The Jesuits (Society of Jesus)

Wrong! The Swiss guard are the best religious institution in the Catholic Church! Reasons Why: 1. They know every martial art known to man, three known to dogs and one known to dolphins. 2. Absolutely BAMF uniforms. It takes massive balls to wear a uniform that one, makes you look like a target, and two, is fluffy. 3. Their armament includes *per person: Two custom made 1911 pistols chambered in .45 ACP +p and outfitted with suppressors, a winchester 1300 shotgun in 000 buck, an m16 a4 heavy variant chambered in 30-06 outfitted with a scope and under-slung m203 grenade launcher, an m-79 LAW, and last but not least, a lightsaber. 4. They can use the force, THE F*CKING FORCE! 5. They protect the Pizzope, who is a PIZZIMP!
Eastern World (Russia and Allies) vs. Western World (US and Allies)

This is not the first time that I have debated this, and not the first time that my opponent has given a blunt, oversimplified answer. "Either way, America is going to win, because they can call on allies such as Britain and France in aid." My opponent never fulfilled my request to specify what exactly we'll be arguing, but from the above statement I conclude that we will be arguing US and Russia WITH allies. Now, my opponent says that the US can call on allies such as Britain and France. That is great, but Britain and France will be obliterated. They will play almost no role. Let me compare the forces of UK and France against China alone. Tanks- China: 9,150 France: 423 UK: 407 SPGs- China: 1,710 France: 149 UK: 89 Fighters/Interceptors- China: 1,170 France: 287 UK: 84 Destroyers (Naval)- China: 24 France: 0 UK: 6 I can keep going, but you get the idea. As I mentioned, that's China alone. China's military by itself would be able to take on all of the USA's allies. "Additionally, the U.S. has some millions of soldiers at their command with many nuclear weapons and has more advanced technology than used in the 80s (cold war.)" Russia and (especially) China also have millions of soldiers at their command, many millions more than the US. Combined, Russia and China have about 665 million men fit for service while the US only has about 120 million. This may surprise you (unfortunately), but Russia and China also have nuclear weapons and technology past the Cold War era. I personally would not like to argue this scenario with nukes because then everyone dies, but if my opponent insists on nuclear warfare as well, I will argue that too. "Additionally, the U.S. can start the war by coming to Ukraine's aid against the Russians and possibly the Chinese" From what I understand, my opponent's tactic of starting the war is by coming to the aid of the Ukrainian government in the fight against the Ukrainian rebels. My opponent's plan has multiple flaws which I will not fail to use. First of all, the US has to fly in hundreds of thousands of troops. That is a difficult task to do solely by airforce. Plus, Russia will realize what's going on and begin to take out planes with troops and cargo as they come into to drop off whatever they're carrying. The US Airforce will take heavy losses just trying to get troops and machines into position to actually start performing military functions. Russia's tank force is the largest in the world (about 15,000) and is twice the size of the US's tank force. Russia will have virtually all tanks at its disposal while the US would have to ship them in across land and sea. Wherever the US decides to drop their forces, that area would soon be overrun by the Russian tank force and be bombarded day and night by Russia's artillery (also largest in the world). http://www.globalfirepower.com... My opponent now has to: 1. Specify whether or not he would like to argue nuclear warfare as well. 2. Develop his battle plan and explain to me why his (USA's) forces would stand a chance when trying to land and get setup in Ukraine.
Eastern World (Russia and Allies) vs. Western World (US and Allies)

Either way, America is going to win, because they can call on allies such as Britain and France in aid. Additionally, the U.S. has some millions of soldiers at their command with many nuclear weapons and has more advanced technology than used in the 80s (cold war.) Additionally, the U.S. can start the war by coming to Ukraine's aid against the Russians and possibly the Chinese
Eastern World (Russia and Allies) vs. Western World (US and Allies)

In this debate, we will be arguing about the military of the US and Russia. My opponent may decide whether he wants to argue only Russia vs. US, or Russia/China vs. NATO. I will arguing for Russia's/China's victory, while my opponent will be arguing for USA's/NATO's victory. In this scenario, the USA/NATO will attack, although if my opponent wants to change this and gives good reasons, then we'll change it to where Russia/China is attacking. After identifying which one (NATO vs. Russia/China or Russia vs. USA) my opponent would like to argue, he may begin.
Eastern World (Russia and Allies) vs. Western World (US and Allies)

"America's people are strong and can prepare themselves for a war at almost any time." This is not even an argument and I could say the exact same about the Russian people. In fact, the US has not ever had a serious enemy step on its land, so you have no idea how the people would react. On the other hand Russia's people showed unbelievable willpower and strength during the 4 years of WW2 that went down on Russia's land. Let's end it there, the "strength of the people" is not something that can be predicted/measured and therefore there is no point in arguing over it. "Also, the reason why China has so many troops, tanks, ships, e.t.c is because they are preparing themselves for a war." Then the US has so many ships, planes etc. because they are preparing for war, and then Russia has so many tanks, SPGs etc. because they are preparing for a war. Your statement does not support your argument and is irrelevant. "But if America prepares for a war then the U.S. will have a very strong military." The same can be said about any country. This is a baseless and opinionated claim. "This is because the U.S. has a very strong war industry such as Boeing and many other minor and major companies." Could my opponent provide more info? Why are they strong? What other minor and major companies? This is another very general and baseless claim. I could say the exact same about Russia. "Finally, the U.S. has better weaponry." Such as? You bring the AK-47 vs. M16 to the table. 1. Russia no longer uses the AK 2. USA no longer uses the M16 3. I can argue that the AK-47 is superior, but that is not the subject of debate and would be a waste of my time. My opponent seems to still be in the Cold War era. Russia and US have advanced their weaponry far past that. My opponent has failed to specify whether we are considering nuclear weaponry. We will not use nuclear weaponry. My opponent has also failed to expand or even support his "invading Russia through Ukraine" battle plan. So far, he has not presented any valid arguments.
Eastern World (Russia and Allies) vs. Western World (US and Allies)

America's people are strong and can prepare themselves for a war at almost any time. Also, the reason why China has so many troops, tanks, ships, e.t.c is because they are preparing themselves for a war. But if America prepares for a war then the U.S. will have a very strong military. This is because the U.S. has a very strong war industry such as Boeing and many other minor and major companies. Finally, the U.S. has better weaponry. Example: The AK47 is the standard Russian assault rifle and is highly manufactured in Russia The M16 is the standard American assault rifle and is also highly manufactured in America. The American M16 is better because it has more ammo capacity, three different modes, lighter, and is possibly easier to construct.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

I'm pro, and I believe there should be a strict limit of one black family per neighborhood. Why? Well, its because black people cause too much violence, and they also create havoc and destruction in society. Furthermore, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of energy non-blacks can harvest, and giving people hypothermia. Thus, there should be a limit of one black family per neighborhood. All extra black families will be sent to prison, until there is a neighborhood currently with no black family living inside. Then, a black family will be randomly chosen from prison to go live in that neighborhood without any black family currently living in it. You're con, with 3 days to prepare an argument, and 8000 characters upper limit. Let's go!
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

Well yes. Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on. No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, but we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, the best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, we are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth. Now I want to here a convincing argument from you.
Chemical sterilization for non-custodial parents of 2 or more children that don't pay child support

In today's failing economy, many non-custodial parents feel the easiest way to save a buck is by ignoring their court-ordered child support obligations. While this in and of itself is a frightening thought, there exists an undercurrent even worse. These parents who choose to ignore their responsibilities, are allowed to continue to reproduce. I put before you if you cannot or will not meet your court-ordered obligations, you should not be left to bring more children you have no plans on supporting into this world. Among the obvious financial benefits to the existing children, this strategy would also encourage parental involvement even after divorce/separation, lessen the economic strain place on welfare projects (and by extension, society in general), encourage thoughtfulness prior to procreation and/or unprotected intercourse (thereby reducing STIs), lessen the chances the existing children will become criminals, and ensure those invoking their reproductive rights are doing so responsibly. This should not be an option for non-custodial parents who have routinely met their obligations and have fallen on hard times (due to loss of job, illness or injury). Those individuals should either a) be given a finite amount of time to recover and/or b) have the courts adjust their child support temporarily, to be returned to normal after a 'hearing'. The adjustments to child support should not be considered if the non-custodial parent has remarried or experienced the birth of another child; it should also not be considered if the custodial parent has fallen on hard time, remarried or experienced the birth of another child. It is important to note that I have specified the child support be court-ordered in order to meet the requirements for chemical sterilization. If the custodial parent has not filed for support for his/her own reasons or both parties have made arrangements outside of the system, they would not be governed by this. It would only fall under the supervision of the courts/government if the custodial parent officially petitioned the system to oversee child-support. Having petitioned and been granted child support, the time/amount prior to the petition being granted would not count against the non-custodial parent. His/her time would start once the courts became involved, so to speak.
People should be free to express their religious views in schools.

Quite unfortunate my opponent has forfeited her 3rd Round. "By not allowing people, both students and teachers, to express their religious views in school, the United States government is going against the amendment they put down." - The first amendment states the government cannot prohibit free speech, not that private individual, or that the government must uphold the tenet of free speech. "Ralph Reed Quote - Ralph Reed is not an infallible source of information. This applies to public schools, not private ones, if indeed this is a true statement. "Having freedom of expression about religion in schools will, at an early age, lessen the fears of being discriminated against by others. Also, by allowing people to freely express their religions in schools, more people will become more tolerant of other religions and allow them to have a better grasp of the religions of the world." - Perhaps it may. But why is that necessarily a good thing. If Satanist promoting murder of innocent people had their views tolerated by others, it may not lead to such an idyllic situation. Indeed my opponent has not presented evidence that this would lead to greater religious tolerance, and why it is necessarily a good thing. "Clinton quote" - Bill Clinton is not an infallible source of information. Secondly he only mentions public schools, not private ones. And while the first amendment does prohibit religious expression, it certainly doesn't invoke the government to uphold it. I await my opponents Round 4.
People should be free to express their religious views in schools.

--- 1) Private Property Rights --- As the definition of schools includes private schools, as explained in Round 1, then such a law would mean private schools would have to allow for freedom of religious expression in schools. This of course would fly in the face of the right for owners private property to restrict people from entry onto their private property. If a person, say Joe, owns a school and decides to make it a Christian school. However with this law, Joes school may not be so Christian if students are not only allowed to speak out against Christianity, but what they say must be tolerated by law. This completley undermines the property as Joes. Thus, such a law would undermine the principle of private property. --- 2) Unscientific Religious Views ---- Many religions espouse a religious view which is a direct contradiction to facts thought in school. The belief of Creationism by the majority of Evangelicals springs to mind. Creationist theory goes against the usually thought Evolution, and for a creationist to have to be given time durign class to voice their opinion on such topic would be detrimental to the class and an overall waste of time seeing as it is not a subjective topic. Indeed, there should be a restriction practised by public schools on students time wasting with all uneducated views, not just religious ones. --- 3) Secularism ---- The 1st Amendment implies that the US government ought to remain neutral in regards to religion. This means giving all religions equality, and the fairest way to do this is the government to remain totally neutral to religions, and giving none preference. This is best achievable through a policy of secularism, where religion is not involved in state institutions. In doing this freedom to express a religion must be banned from public schools. I await my opponents rebuttal in round 3.