BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Health class in high school exagerates everything and hides most of the truth

I understand where your coming from but they are lying, look at your definition number 2 and 6 Lie - 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. they are donveying a false impression, i am agreeing with you on the fact that they should speak more about the negatives than the positives but both sides need to be explained thouroghly for a better understanding of the drug
Health class in high school exagerates everything and hides most of the truth

"yes they can say its bad and they can say that we shouldn't do it but that does not make give them reason to lie to us The youth are lacking information leading them into curiousity" Giving you a lack of information is not liing. Lie - 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement. 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. –verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. –verb (used with object) 7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. —Idioms8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict. b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience. 9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth (Dictionary.com) "ive never done drugs but i know people who do and they are fine, sometimes better" Sometimes better, but sometimes isn't always. People could get hurt and killed by using drugs, especially if they think it heals and use to much of said drug. "if marijuana iis used a as a medecine in some cases, why cant we learn about how it saves lives too" Because if you learned about how it saved lives, people would use it in desperate situations and probably overdose or use it to much (if you can't overdose on the said drug) and people would get hurt and die. It's a matter of safety to me.
Health class in high school exagerates everything and hides most of the truth

your right in some cases but i still think they are not telling the whole truth yes they can say its bad and they can say that we shouldn't do it but that does not make give them reason to lie to us The youth are lacking information leading them into curiousity ive never done drugs but i know people who do and they are fine, sometimes better if marijuana iis used a as a medecine in some cases, why cant we learn about how it saves lives too Its a matter of principles and truth to me
Health class in high school exagerates everything and hides most of the truth

"your teachers always denies whatever positive effect a drug/alcohol has and tends to over exaggerate the negative effects" Not always. Some teacher provide both effects, but show that the negative effects outweigh the good effects. Some teachers may over exaggerate the negative effects, but once again, most times they have reason to, such as the negative effects outweighing the good. They don't want their students to smoke pot and drink beer because of only one or two positive effects.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

interpretation does mean it's not inspired. this really isnt even much of anything worth of an argument on your part. what does catholics believing have to do with anything. you couldnt do as requested and list the top three suppsoed contradictions. i assume it's cause you are not knowledgeable about them, and that the points are without merit. youve yet to show a contradiction. your burden has not been fulfilled.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

some administrative points regarding your post. one is that i asked for you not to use what you perceive to be biblical contradictions, cause it's too open to interpretation usually. the other is that you are too vague and listy, like how i said don't say things like "papal bull regarding the jews" without being at all specific. the other is you have way too many points to tackle... if they are so strong, pick the top three and i will address them. i see no necessary contradictions as is.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to. also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
The Victim, of a school Bully, should be allowed to retaliate without any charges.

I accept. I am really new to this and debating in general. However, my opponent has a good track record and after reading their other debates, I am sure I will be treated with respect. I have already participated in one debate and forfeited simply because I forgot about it, so please don't think I will make that mistake again. Just to reiterate, I myself am not familiar with some of the more proper techniques or layouts of debating, and if you have any criticism or tips I would appreciate it. Just for clarity, I find that this particular subject is difficult to quantify and put numbers or statistics into. I don't want to rely purely on personal experiences or "well my friend.." type of "sources". However I am always trying to bring myself to a level of understanding for my fellow humans and won't submit to personal attacks or discredit anything personally. I am a little worried on the muddy definition of School Bully: A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. In this case, school. Physicality is by far the most threatening, however mentally or verbally bullying someone can even be just as damaging. If this falls into the debate I will make sure to bring it up but I just wanted to state this.
The Victim, of a school Bully, should be allowed to retaliate without any charges.

This debate is whether or not a victim of bullying should be allowed to retaliate to a school bully without any charges (Suspension, Expelled, etc.)Rules:No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.No Trolls please!If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rules.Structure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3: Both sides RebuttalRound 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Definitions:Victim: A person harmed, injured, or even killed as a result of some form of punishment. In this case, a school bully inflicting pain.School Bully: A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. In this case, school.Allowed: Admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptableRetaliate: Make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack.Charges: Accuse (someone) of something, especially an offense under lawGood luck to whoever accepts!
Homeschooling is not bad to do

First of all, I was homeschooled and now I'm in regular school. When I transferred to regular school from homeschooling I thought that I would struggle in it. It turned out that I did completely fine! I now have all A's in all classes, expect for History, which is my favourite subject. And I am doing well period. My argument is that many people, NOT ALL, tend to think homeschooling deprives a child from social interaction. Homeschooling, itself, doesn't, it depends on whether the parents chooses not to let the child socially interact with others. And in most cases, homeschoolers are just as social as regular schoolers. My friend at school said homeschooling doesn't teach you everything and is not essential. (He's a smart-Alec) He said, "Parents can't teach you through highschool" Well they can if they want! Then he said to me "You weren't homeschooled Freshman year" and I said "yes! " "Yes I was"! My teacher defended me and homeschoolers to say that he homeschooled his kids until highschool and they are just as smart. The teacher also said, "If a homeschooler is taught 4 hours of school every day, with focus, he may be ahead of a lot of kids in regular school. While in regular school, the average attention span for each student is 20 minutes of more. At the end of the year, the homeschooler will have possibly learned more" And with the social interaction, I was in Boy Scouts, Sea Scouts and did community service, which all added up, helped me "exist" my shell and come out more. (More out going) Boy Scout camp helped me a lot as well. I know 4 homeschoolers who are extremely out going and then there are kids at my school who seem terrified when I say hi or even bump into seem accidentally. So to say, homeschoolers are socially deprived is false. ALSO, I was in the National Honour Society and my friend who was skeptical about homeschooling said that I have "changed [his] views on homeschooling" Homeschooling is not bad RULES: When writing, please explain your opinions clearly No swearing, curing or using profane words Please spell the best you can Organize your debate with paragraphs. Do NOT type in one big monster paragraph. I detest reading stuff like that. Make sure to capitalize letters, including I's. And can someone tell me how to vote? When ever I am done with my debate, it says, "Vote here! " I vote, type in a little message and the button I am suppose to click doesn't work! IT's impossible to vote here! So if I never vote, don't' take it personally. I do not how. Haha.
Blue is a Better Color than Red

It's the rebuttal round! My opponent first said that red is the color of fertility. I don't really want to get into sexual stuff, but red is merely a signal of fertility that is not entirely needed. The human reproductive system sends off a ton of other signals, and we don't need red to know of healthy sexuality. He said that the exclusivity is what makes red appealing, and then he went right on to say that he wanted to get red colors wherever he was lively and energetic. Additionally, there are many more energetic colors, say, bright green, or bright blue. He then said that red is an important color because of its rarity a second time. I would also like to apologize that my third contention is labeled 4 above. That was a typo.
Blue is a Better Color than Red

Very good points. I can come up with some of my own.1. Red has been the colour of fertility:We are evolutionarilly programmed to get excited by the colour red. For a long time, the only place it could be found is on reproductional organs. This fact is true even for plants. Red has been noted as a colour of healthy sexuality in some cutures. The Hindu "Chakra" is a good example of this.2. Red is the colour of positivity:Sometimes I watch sunsets. The best sunsets are a factor of the colour red. The exclusivity of the colour red is what makes many things appealing. If I wanted a lively and energetic area, the colour should be red. Red is the best colour to have when enjoying something.3. Red is the longest wavelength:First off, blue is not actually the shortest (Athough it is 2nd closest) Purple is. Why don't we see purple waters? Red is the longest wavelength, meaning, though it may not appear frequently, it becomes exclusive. It becomes an important colour because of it's rarity.
Blue is a Better Color than Red

Blue is a better color than red for 3 main reasons: 1-Red has been a bad color since the dawn of time: For example in Egypt, red was considered the color of evil. [1] The "red land" was the land of "barren deserts. " Black land was muddy and fertile and was considered good. Also the Egyptian God Set was the god of evil and was entirely the color red. Additionally, red is the color of blood when it is exposed to oxygen. When it is inside the body, it is blue. [2] In fact, venous blood is oxygenated during cyanide poisoning and takes on a reddish tinge. 2-Blue is the color of nature and serenity: Chances are, if you look at something natural, it's blue. If you look up when you're outside, you'll see the sky, which is blue. The ocean covers 71% of the Earth's surface [3] and it's blue. Blue is the color of nature. Blue is a very relaxing color. If you wanted to go to sleep, would you really want to be seeing something red or blue? Red is bright and angry, whereas blue feels more calming than red. 4-Blue is the most efficient light color: Blue light has the shortest wavelength of any other color. [4] This opens up the color for myriad possibilities. For example, there's a reason the ocean is blue. The wavelength is able to reach farther than any other color and reaches the farthest through the water: . http://www.realclearscience.com... The photo on the left is taken with a white color flash and the one on the right is not. Additionally, it is able to make plants grow faster. Blue light "triggers mechanisms involved in leaf growth and phototropism. " [4] Finally, the reason that Blu-ray is used so much is because of its use with blue lights, hence Blu. (No, that's not a spelling error. ) These are my 3 main arguments. I may add more in my second round if I think of any more and add them along with the refutations to my opponents arguments. Below are my sources. Sources: 1-. http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk... 2-. http://omlc.org... 3-. http://water.usgs.gov... 4-. http://www.realclearscience.com...
Bob is a better name than Joe

first, i would like to point out that Joe in fact uses less time to write then bob, test it out for yourself. Bob sounds really boring, Job sounds more piercing, harsh, and fun. JOE, jo-e, j-oe. joe is more of a name. sounding out Bob is moving your lip up and down while making a sound. Joe requires lots of skilled movement of the mouth, and is therefore a smarter name. Joe Jackson, joe Jonas, joe Biden. Joes in this world are so much more important than the bobs of this world. Bob dylan? B.O.B? well Joe's got Joe Biden, the VP of the USA, best country in the world. Joe is a female name and may cause a bit of confusion, but by being apart of both sexes, this name is a name that is equal to both man and woman. Names like this reduce the amount of gender differences between our society and allows us to be less discriminatory by allowing names such as these. This allows us to see women as equal to men and thus ushers in a paradigm shift for gender equality!
Bob is a better name than Joe

I apologize if your name is Joe. First round - arguments. There's only one round. That's it. Bob is easier to spell than Joe - Bob only has two letters used, b and o. Joe has three: j, o, and e. Bob is more fun to say than Joe - Bo-ob. Bo-b. B-ob. See? Fun to say! There's no confusion about Bob - While Joe can be mistaken for girl nickname Jo, there's no female counterpart of Bob. If someone says, "My friend Jo(e)," unless they say so, you have no idea of the sex of the friend. If someone says, "My friend Bob," you know for sure this friend is a boy. As you can see, Bob is a far better name than Joe.
Genetically modified organisms' benefits outweigh the harm

I extend my arguments. I will also take this opportunity to summarize the debate. Cons main arguments are such- 1. GMOs are more nutritional. 2. Herbicide and insecticide resistant are a major benefit to farmers. 1. I showed why every single one of Cons examples of nutritional GMO crops aren't actually beneficial or healthier then non-GMO crops. I showed how Plenish is only marginally healthier option of a already unhealthy oil, how potatos lacking in carcinogens don't have anything to do with obesity as Con claims, and how Golden Rice is just an unnecessarily costly alternative to Vitamin supplements. Basically, I showed that all of Cons examples either aren't healthier then non-GMOs, or aren't actually useful for solving hunger-related problems. 2. I clearly showed how herbicide resistant plants are bad by showing how they just increase the use of herbicide, a harmful substance. I also showed in P1B how insecticide resistant crops are also bad. My main arguments are such: 1. Insecticide and herbicide resistant plants are harmful 2. GMOs are just money making tools by big business, which will do anything to make money, regardless of health constraints. 1. Con asserts that herbicide resistant crops don't encourage the use of herbicides, and that insect resistant crops won't become invasive as they won't escape into the wild. In my rebuttal to C1B I clearly showed how herbicide resistant crops are made SOLELY to sell more herbicides. Additionally, I also explained that several studies (one of which I cited) have linked herbicide resistant crops to an increase in herbicide use. I also cited several examples of GMOs escaping into the wild and becoming potential problems, completely negating Cons rebuttal. 2. Con states that this debate is about GMOs, not big business, and that the industry doesn't need transparency. However, I made it clear that GMOs and big business are inescapably intertwined. The only people with the money and expertise to manufacture GMOs are big business, so we can't discuss GMOs without discussing big business. Additionally, please refer to my rebuttal to C1B for clear evidence of big business linked with GMOs. I also stated P1B how major corporations have spent millions trying to keep GMOs from being labeled, giving more evidence of non-transparancy, which Con states doesn't matter. He also challenged me to name examples of GMOs causing harm, which I did. As you can see, I have refuted Cons arguments and defended my own.
Genetically modified organisms' benefits outweigh the harm

Quick Note- I didn't break up my topics so well since I wrote it all at once, and it's my first debate. I would like my opponent to keep this in mind, and to take some liberty in his own grouping when he's refuting. Thanks. Rebuttals P1A- My opponent is making a slippery slope argument here. Herbicide resistant crops makes people more inclined to use herbicide, but the plants are also more resistant to parasites, so they wouldn't have to use herbicides in the first place. The herbicide resistance is just precautionary. P1B- Not sure what my opponent means here, but all I'm going to say is crops are separate from ecosystems. They won't mingle. Besides they're meant to be resistant to common pests and if it were somehow in a forest, I'm sure the animals can eat it safely. P2A- This debate was centered around the GMOs, not the company. The company is horrible and corrupt and what ever claims you'll make. Yet that takes nothing away from the nutrition of GMOs. This is similar to how guns don't kill people, but people kill people. The politics has nothing to do with the scientific benefits. GMOs are also relatively new and standards and regulations will be set up. P2B- Same as above. Also my opponent should provide any sort of evidence for why we should care about this. GMOs while relatively new has still been used more many years. I would like to challenge my opponent to name any incident that would need transparency. Children haven't grown second heads, and no one has reported any real problems yet.