BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The right to bear firearms is no longer beneficial to the safety of the US citizen. (2nd amendment)

Ok so I would like to take this moment to say you're an idiot. I am going to use this round to set out my points.1-This 2nd Amendment repeal is ironically unconstitutional and illegal as 2/3 out of all the states need to agree to the change which will never happen.https://en.wikipedia.org...2-This change would not 'stop gun violence' it actually harms them more as school shooters don't care what the law says they'd do it anyway wouldn't they?3-States with the lowest gun ownership rate have a higher murder rate. For example, the US state of Delaware with 5.2% of the population owning a gun had a gun murder rate of 5.5 per every 100,000 in 2015 while Alaska with a gun ownership of 61.7% had a gun murder rate of 5.3 per 100,000 in the same time period.https://en.wikipedia.org...
Homework Should Be Banned

Alright!First off.. "Firstly I believe that Homework is pointless due to the fact that many students don't even do it, why go through so much effort for nothing?"Well, just because most people don't do something does not make it pointless. Consider the scenario that not many children at a school buy their lunch at school. This means that because not many of them do it, it is pointless and the school should stop putting out effort to feed these kids. That doesn't sound very good does it? *No*Also, "Homework also makes the student bored and makes them not want to achieve in school due to the lack of free time because of homework." Well, saying that homework bores students is a complete assumption. What if their homework is to go to a park and collect different leaves from trees? What if their homework is building a diorama of a Volcano? Those sound fun to me! My point is that you cannot make the assumption that:a. Some homework is boring.b. All homework consists of some homeworkc. Therefore all homework is boring "Also why after 6 hours of working should they have to endure another hour of two?"They endure another two hours of homework in order to understand everything that they have learned. It would be pointless to go to school for six hours and just keep learning and never go over what you learn."Though recent studies may show the fact that students gain from homework it is stressful enough for them to have to go to school study and do exams in the first place why add more stress on their back?"Well, if studies have proven that students gain from homework, exams are just a test of knowledge to make sure they understand how they are doing their work. Stress is a state of mind that you put yourself into. It is easily avoidable in the sense that you really shouldn't stress about just another test. All exams are just big tests, stress is easily avoidable. If you cannot control your stress you should work on it, or talk to someone and try to get help."Recent studies also show that many students drop out of school due to homework and result to home schooling and other means of education." Okay? If these students cannot handle their homework, they should get tutoring, or spend less time socializing until they have a chance to actually finish their homework. "Homework also strains the parent/child relationship due to them arguing over it, whether it the time place or how to actually do it."Homework doesn't strain any relationships, the members do. Either the parents are over-baring, or the student is irresponsible. Thank you!
Homework Should Be Banned

Thank you. I love forward to debating to. Firstly I believe that Homework is pointless due to the fact that many students don't even do it, why go through so much effort for nothing? Homework also makes the student bored and makes them not want to achieve in school due to the lack of free time because of homework. Also why after 6 hours of working should they have to endure another hour of two? Though recent studies may show the fact that students gain from homework it is stressful enough for them to have to go to school study and do exams in the first place why add more stress on their back? Recent studies also show that many students drop out of school due to homework and result to home schooling and other means of education. Homework also strains the parent/child relationship due to them arguing over it, whether it the time place or how to actually do it. This is why I strongly believe that homework should be banned. Thank you.
Homework Should Be Banned

I accept, and I expect that the BoP will be shared.Homework: refers to tasks assigned to students by their teachers to be completed outside the class. Common homework assignments may include a quantity or period of reading to be performed, writing or typing to be completed, problems to be solved, a school project to be built (such as a diorama or display), or other skills to be practiced.I do not believe that homework should be banned for many reasons benefitting the student: Students benefit from homework, as it reinstitutes what they have learned. Helps students understand concepts that they may not have understood in class. Gives students mental exercises to induce brain activity, and memorization of common skills and necessary knowledge. If students did not do homework, they would be likely to forget what they had learned from school, and waste their time on unnecesary tasks. This may seem that it forces kids to miss out on being socially active with their friends and family, but in reality it does not. Social activity is not eliminated by the institution of homework, but rather influences the student to work hard to finish their homework in order to have a good time with friends and family.Thank you, and I look forward to debating the topic of homework with you.
beauty is skin deep

Beauty- The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Given this understanding, beauty can have many different aspects. Reducing the good and the beautiful to mere aesthetics is a huge mistake. Qualities like humility, truthfulness, and moral goodness can also give pleasure to the senses and thus can make a person "beautiful". Since these qualities are by definition not skin deep we can conclude that beauty is not necessarily skin deep. (Resolution negated) All the best, Freeman
Young-earth creation

There's plenty of reasons to believe that the Bible is true! It's been around for over a thousand years and all its prophecies have come true, and millions of people believe in it, so there must be some truth to it. Science has been around for about 500 years and has changed over-and-over again. Moreover, I cannot, and no one can, prove God exists. One must have faith. You have faith that nothing exists, and I have faith something does
Young-earth creation

Science is completely misguided when talking about the age of the earth. Their "evidence" doesn't make sense, and I think the devil is working his game over these fools! Scientists used to believe that Adam and Eve were real and that they birthed humanity, that the earth was completely changed by Noah's flood. They knew this stuff was real! It wasn't until atheistic writings began to trick people that scientists began writing new theories, which contradicted the Bible. These new scientists with their new "theories" didn't even test to see if Noah's flood could have happened. As a consequence, people began not to believe any more. God tells us what happened, so what purpose is there to go against the perfect word?
Vaccinating your Child

Producing a flu vaccine doesn't have too much of a point. There are many strains of the flu and it mutates quickly. The actual flu vaccine is actually several flu vaccines for the strains that are believe to be the most likely to emerge that season. The flu strains that weren't predicted for the season will not be affected by the flu vaccine and thus can still make people sick and in severe cases kill. There is also the problems that the flu constantly mutates which further makes the vaccine less effective. Effectively I would rather have groups researching ways to treat the flu in general rather than trying to get everyone to get a vaccine every year. I would have to agree that in most situations, vaccines outweigh the negatives. But for some people, the negatives don't outweigh the positives, especially when they have had complications with other vaccines. An example of one such person Nancy Jaax, worked at a Biosafety Lab. To work in a biosafety level three you needed to be vaccinated for everything in the lab. Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into bio safety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures.
Vaccinating your Child

I believe Con's argument against the flu shot to be somewhat incorrect. There is a common goal with the flu vaccine. The flu is a constantly changing virus and is therefore incredibly difficult to treat. The aim of the flu vaccine is not to completely eradicate or stop the flu from spreading, but instead to minimise the chance of the person becoming infected with the illness. While a flu in one's adult years may just keep you from work for a couple of days, it is more serious in infants and older ages as the immune system finds it more difficult to deal with (increasing fatality rate). The goal of the flu vaccine is simply to minimise this risk, and not to completely eradicate the virus. As with all pharmaceutical goods, nothing is used on the market unless the drugs positive effects outweigh its negatives. So yes, while I agree with Con's point that vaccines do have the potential to cause some negative side effects, so do many common medications that are widely used around the world. Paracetamol, ibuprofen and cetirizine are all used every day by people all around the world, and all have side effects that are clearly stated on the enclosed leaflets. Vaccines are the same, however it seems because people don't have the box readily available at their disposal, the threat of side effects becomes much more frightening.
Vaccinating your Child

I would like to make it clear that I do not think vaccines are bad. If it wasn't for vaccines we would still have small pox on this earth. In addition, the only way to survive rabies is with the rabies vaccine (unvaccinated rabies is like germx for people, it kills 99.99% of humans infected.) Despite all the good vaccines do, they still have negatives. There are people who cannot get vaccinated without getting very sick. Some people even die from getting a vaccine. These side effects can often run in the family so it makes sense that those who have a family history of bad reactions to vaccines may not want their child to be vaccinated. I also believe vaccines should not be used unless there is some goal. For rabies, it is saving the person. For small pox it was eradicating it. For Ebola (vaccine for Ebola is currently being worked on), it would be about stopping the outbreak. I personally find the flu shot to be lacking of a good goal, you can't eradicate the flu, people will still get the flu despite the vaccine, and people would need to get the vaccine yearly.
Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.
Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's "forgiveness" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.
Gender is Not a Spectrum

I would like to comment on what the opposition said, that the non-spectral nature of gender gives rise to the bathroom issue. That is irrelevant to the current topic about whether it's right to have gender as a spectrum or not, but it might be used as an arguement.In fact, the spectral nature of gender automatically refutes the bathroom argument. This is due to the fact that if gender was indeed a spectrum, then any person falls somewhere in it. Let's consider a spectrum ranging from 0 (completely Male) to 100 (completely female). If someone fell on 30 for example, what bathroom does he go to? Not the male bathroom because he isn't 100% male, and not the female bathroom for the exact same reason. What if he falls on 40? 50? Should we make a bathroom for every possible gender identity?The 2-month (or so) transitioning stage is a point well made. My opinion is that anyone who is neither male nor female at the current time would go to the agendered bathroom.Back to our main topic, the bathroom issue in no way affirms the need for a gender spectrum.
Gender is Not a Spectrum

My argument is that gender should be considered a spectrum because it is a known fact that throughout history humans have been born with both Genitals And some people have been born with none or just don't feel like they don't fit as a boy Or a girl although if that's the case then people really should not discuss their gender, although then the issue of bathrooms comes up, which to be honest is a tough thing to figure out. Technically they will need to report to the bathroom of their birth gender but then they may be bullied by people in there teasing them about their "gender". I understand and agree personally don't believe in more than a Male gender a Female gender and gender-less and I understand your argument but Personally I think that It should be considered a spectrum because of the two year time frame of gender transition. That essentially concludes my first argument (sorry this is my first time just trying to get the hang of debate)
Schools Should Start Later in The Day

A teenager could not go to bed early even if they wanted to. Teenagers that are going through puberty can't go to sleep earlier even if they wanted to because of hormonal changes in there body. I also do have proof that many people stay home after school: http://www.edutopia.org... Also a small minority of kids have after school sports and 65% of high school students don't have jobs. Where is your evidence that high school students have hobs? Aren't academics a priority over playing football or an after school job? A collage would rather take a child that has all As and Bs instead of the kid who got strait Cs and played football, in fact many collages won't accept the kid with Cs. It is more important to make sure you get into a good collage than work after school, a child who goes to collage will make $21,528 more a year than a high school graduate. Sources: http://www.petersons.com... http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... http://www.ask.com...
Schools Should Start Later in The Day

All my oponents case was based on is the fact that kids performance and grades go down because of not getting enough sleep. But that doesn't mean that school should start later in the day. If we set school to start an hour later, kids would probably just stay up an hour later the night before. Therefore they would get the same sleep deprivation as before and it would not change anything.If we really wanted to boost our performance in school, we should solve our sleep deprivation issues by going to bed earlier so we have more hours of sleep. "Also academics are more important that after school activities, and a person can change there schedule by an hour or two. Also most people have the first one or two hours after they leave school free." *than (sorry haha)And yes people can change their schedule by an hour or two! By going to sleep earlier! Most people? Do you have statistics that most students have the first two or one hours after they leave school? Most students do sports right after school or have to go work if they are in high school. Does that mean that if we push school to later in the day that we won't have enough time? Yes it does. Schools should remain how they are now.
Schools Should Start Later in The Day

Schools should start early to gives kids more time to sleep. According to a study done "sleep deprivation in teens has been linked to lower levels of Human Growth Hormone, which is integral to a teenager"s physical growth, brain development, and maturation of their immune system, as well as higher rates of anxiety disorders and depression." Also teenagers with more sleep have a tendency to score higher in schools. In a study of fourth and sixth graders conducted by sleep researcher Dr. Avi Sadeh at Tel Aviv University, a mere one-hour nightly loss of sleep was "equivalent to the loss of two years of cognitive maturation and development." In other words, when deprived of just one hour of sleep each night, a sleep-deprived sixth-grader performed like a fourth grader. That's not progress. Also sleep influences people alertness. Most teens need about nine hours of sleep a night , and sometimes more , to maintain optimal daytime alertness, but many children don't get enough sleep due to numerous factors. Also academics are more important that after school activities, and a person can change there schedule by an hour or two. Also most people have the first one or two hours after they leave school free. Soruces: http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.cnn.com...
If there is no, hate, there'll be no love. If there is no love, there'll be no hate.

I believe that love and hate are opposites of one another and they cannot exist without one another. Con has said that love and hate are not opposites, but I believe they are.The world is full of opposites, and so are you. You must bring it all into balance in this world. Earth, sky. Day, night. Sound and silent. Dark and light. One alone is not enough. You need both together.
If there is no, hate, there'll be no love. If there is no love, there'll be no hate.

I accept the challenge that my opponent has presented to me! - First of all, it is important to clarify a few things, - First, Pro maintains the burden of proof in this debate. - Second, Pro holds the burden to prove that hate and love are cannot exist without one another. - Third, if Con is able to provide a compelling argument to either love or hate can exist without the other, then he has maintained his burden of clash. With these bits of framework in mind I will give a brief preview of the argument I intend to make in the coming rounds. However since Pro maintains the BOP I will not provide a full argument until after my opponent has done so. The argument is as follows- Love and hate are not opposites of one another. This being the case they exist independent of one another.
If there is no, hate, there'll be no love. If there is no love, there'll be no hate.

Thanks to my opponent for such a swift reply! While my opponent continues to argue a theme of dualism, she has yet to warrant it. The only reason she's offered to believe that Love and Hate cannot exist without each other is that they're opposite so one can't exist without the other. Not only is this argument of dualism wrong, but even if it wasn't there's no reason to believe that it warrants Pro's central argument. I've already shown how love and hate are not opposites through my argument of fondness existing on a sliding scale. If anything indifference is the opposite of love... or hate... or, really any emotion. Next my opponent throws in an irrelevant argument about heaven and hell being opposites. This argument has nothing to do with the debate proper, but even if it did who says that heaven is the opposite of hell? In Christian doctrine for example, hell is the default. If you don't do anything in your life, but don't accept Jesus as your savior, you go to hell. If you murder millions of people, but do accept Jesus you go to heaven. Anyway, irrelevant argument is irrelevant. The point is one of dualism and opposites; even if you buy Pro's dualism argument it doesn't warrant love and hate being opposites. If we know that the two can exist independent of one another in isolation, then we must assume the same is true in totality.
If there is no, hate, there'll be no love. If there is no love, there'll be no hate.

I am not saying that love and hate cannot exist without each other for something, but what I'm saying is that love and hate are opposites and they cannot exist without each other, for anything. I mean, in your life, you must have loved and hated something/someone. I'm not saying that if you stop hating something/someone, you'll start loving them, or if you stop loving something/someone, you start hating them. I'm saying that people can't just hate something/someone and not love other things/people in their lives. Everyone has loved and hated something/someone in their lives. Just like they've agreed or disagreed with something/someone. Or they've been bad and good. Just like, if there's no heaven, there'll be no hell, if there's no hell, there'll be no heaven.
Global warming is an issue.

I agree with my opponent's argument! However, since my opponent chose to choose the side of Con, she was supposed to argue that Global Warming was not an issue. Everything she says indicates that global warming is an issue, so her case is self-defeating! I use her argument to show that global warming is an issue. Therefore, I encourage voters to vote Pro. . http://www.truthmove.org... --- This source, which my opponent helpfully gives in support of my position, elaborates further on how global warming is an issue.
Global warming is an issue.

I feel that global warming is a huge issue, it is destroying our earth! It is harming animals and our environment. Without putting a stop to this, there could be many more problems in later time. We are already using so much of the Earth and destroying it by using too many natural resources, but by causing more global warming, we are making it harder for the Earth to catch up with us using all its sources. Its hard for the Earth to support us so we need to keep that in mind and make sure we are not causing global warming and hurting the earth. www.truthmove.org/content/global-warming/