BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"School of the hard knocks" isn't a replacement for an academic education.

I'm not sure if what you're saying directly disagrees with my topic, so I'm not exactly sure why you accepted it. In your example (with your sick son), you did exactly the right thing (and what I would've done). You contacted an expert on the subject, you looked into an alternative option and you made a decision based on the knowledge available. Not everyone has to be an intellectual. Some people have white collar gifts. Other people have blue collar gifts. But there's no reason why someone who has no educational background can't spend 10 minutes a day on Khan Academy learning something new about our world or humanity. As far as judging people goes, I try to be as open-minded and respectful as I can, but ignorance is just too destructive. If you're not giving your children vaccines because you prefer conspiracy theories over real science, I will judge you. If you're denying climate change because you prefer the word of talk hosts over real scientists, I will judge you. If you're voting but have little knowledge on our country's history, current events or political system, I will judge you. If you're bringing children into this world and you're (by choice) giving them very little intellectual sustenance, I will judge you. Even if you're the nicest person on Earth, even if you're a loving parents and a good friend, your ignorance is still hurting other people. I agree that we should go out and live as much of our lives as we can first-hand. But there's so many places, which we can't physically go, that books (and other sources) can tell us about.
"School of the hard knocks" isn't a replacement for an academic education.

I accepted this debate because I am a highly educated person, struggling to accept those that are different from me. There are times that I have viewed them as not being able to offer what I feel I can, in terms of intellectual progress. Recently, I came to the very sad realization that I was what some might call "an intellectual snob". Hence, my decision to accept this debate, with the desire to view things from "the other side of the coin". Recently my kid needed emergency surgery because of an accident. It was necessary for decisions to be made in advance of the surgery. Big decisions. Neither of us are doctors, but we know enough to know that we have a right to a 2nd opinion, and have the ability to research and understand our options in addition to what his surgeon was telling us. In the end, we went with the surgeons recommendation, and felt good about ourselves being such smart parents. Kudos to the educated right? What I learned from that was I am full of fear, and mistrust. And I believe I have excellent safeguards in place to make a good and protected life for myself and my family. What I also learned is that I did not, in my hour of research (which is all I had) in any way replace the 12-18 years of schooling that our surgeon - but in all honestly, just alleviated my own temporary fears to "feel good" about what I was being forced to decide. I didn't educate myself on anything really. The same applies to any and all topics. Everyone has different gifts, and because of a distrustful society, we feel we must rely on ourselves to provides all the answers. Everyone has a different path, but all souls are the same. Judging based on educational or intellectual prowess, means that there is something going on inside ourselves that we need to heal.
Anti gun laws would be anti-feminist

(Con:) "Men are more likely to have guns, and are more likely to commit violence with guns." If this isn't a good argument for why a woman should be able to carry a gun, I don't know what is... - (Con:) "Of the 97 mass shootings in which three or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women (one of those being the San Bernardino attack in which a man also participated)" So now I have men and Islamic extremists to deal with. My grip on my gun just got tighter. - (Con) "Pro only gives one example of a raping in Cologne, but surely we cannot use this one cherry picked example to make the claim, gun laws are better." Okay. I will be using Con's own claim to fulfill this request. Con said, " Data shows gun violence is disproportionately a male problem. Of the 97 mass shootings in which three or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women (one of those being the San Bernardino attack in which a man also participated), according to a database from the liberal-leaning news outlet Mother Jones. Men also accounted for 86% of gun deaths in the United States, according to an analysis by the non-partisan non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation." "Men are more likely to own a gun " three times more, according to a 2017 survey from the Pew Research Center." - (Con:) "The evidence quoted proves 1) men are more likely to have guns and 2) men are more like to commit gun violence. Considering this evidence, with current gun laws, it"s more of an unequal battle" 1)Con assumes that I'm alone, & that I'm not with a gun carrying male. 2)My individual liberties & right to protect myself are not dependent on how many other females do or do not carry a gun. Our rights are not dependent on what group we are labeled as, but as individual human beings. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of PERSONAL freedoms and rights. The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect myself with a gun. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org... ----- Why should I be allowed a gun to defend myself? 1)Every 98 seconds someone is sexually assaulted in America. 2)1 out of 6 women has experienced a sexual assault. 3)As of 1998, an estimated 17.7 million American women had been victims of attempted or completed rape. 4) The likelihood that a person suffers suicidal or depressive thoughts increases after sexual violence. 94% of women who are raped experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the two weeks following the rape. 5) 30% of women report symptoms of PTSD 9 months after the rape. 33% of women who are raped contemplate suicide. 13% of women who are raped attempt suicide. https://www.rainn.org...
Anti gun laws would be anti-feminist

My case: Anti-Gun laws advocate for Feminism I agree with my opponent"s definitions First argument: Men are more likely to have guns, and are more likely to commit violence with guns. "Data shows gun violence is disproportionately a male problem. Of the 97 mass shootings in which three or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women (one of those being the San Bernardino attack in which a man also participated), according to a database from the liberal-leaning news outlet Mother Jones. Men also accounted for 86% of gun deaths in the United States, according to an analysis by the non-partisan non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation." "Men are more likely to own a gun " three times more, according to a 2017 survey from the Pew Research Center." https://www.usatoday.com... The evidence quoted proves 1) men are more likely to have guns and 2) men are more like to commit gun violence. Considering this evidence, with current gun laws, it"s more of an unequal battle. Since more men than women would have guns, in this hypothetical gun fights, men will not only outnumber women in the rates of gun violence, but are also more likely to have guns on them. And from this, we can safely say men are more likely to have experience with these weapons. Just having a gun doesn"t make you safe, but also knowing how to use a gun. So with these guns circulating through society, women have more to fear with the high crime rate committed by males with guns, and the fact that women are less likely to even have guns on them to defend themselves. With guns, Pro assumes all women will have guns (not true), and that women will know how to use these guns (not true), and women will commit just as much violence (not true). Second argument: Taking away guns give women a better chance. Anti-Gun laws give women a inherently better chance of surviving, since it"s harder to kill without these weapons, women have an easier time of running, biting, gouging, whatever is necessary to survive, rather than be shot and be done over with. Pro only gives one example of a raping in Cologne, but surely we cannot use this one cherry picked example to make the claim, gun laws are better. We have to speak in a general way, if we"re talking about a policy for all of the U.S. The best way to approach this is to not use one example, but use common everyday examples which Cologne is not. This is the approach I have taken above.
Anti gun laws would be anti-feminist

Definition of feminism 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests ````` Anti gun laws would be anti Feminist. Why? -Women are on average physically weaker, smaller, and not as fast as men. To not allow them a gun is to not allow them any way to equalize the situation. THE RAPE OF COLOGNE- During the 2015/2016 New Year's Eve celebrations, there were allegedly mass sexual assaults, 24 rapes, and numerous thefts in Germany, mainly in the Cologne city center. There were similar incidents at the public celebrations in Hamburg, Dortmund, D"sseldorf, Stuttgart and Bielefeld. For all of Germany, police estimated in a document in 2016 that 1,200 women were sexually assaulted and that at least 2,000 men were involved, often acting in groups. https://en.wikipedia.org... AGerman weapons experts say that Germany's weapons laws were among the world's strictest. https://en.wikipedia.org... If only one woman had been armed, would we have prevented 700, 1,000, maybe most of all of the 1,200 attacks? Possibly. These weapons laws literally put women at risk, at a disadvantage, and encouraged a mass rape and sexual assault by over 2,000 men on 1,200 women. Is that justice? Looks like injustice to me. Definition of Justice: "the administering of deserved punishment or reward." http://www.dictionary.com... And in this case, most of the attackers got away, were not punished, and the women were assaulted. The gun law caused and encouraged an unjust act. Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. https://en.wikipedia.org... Nothing about what happened here was socially just. Nothing about what happened here was pro feminist. And an armed woman could have prevented it all or much of it. One dead guy in the street or with a gun up to his cranium would have been all it would have taken to turned this carnage around.
Most Pro Athletes are Overpaid

Not all athletes are overpaid but here are just a few; Stephen Jackson salary 10,060,000 last years stats 8.9 points 3.4 rebounds, Carlos Boozer salary 15,000,000 15 points 8.5 rebounds and the last one for this round Amar'e Stoudemire salary 19,948,799 17.5 points 7.8 rebounds. Some very good players but not worth that kind of money.
Turkey built their country with blood and murder!

Firstly let me just say that I agree that the Ottoman Empire was responsible for those things but also there were genocides that the modern Turks committed! The Pontic Greek, Armenian and Assyrian Genocides! They all committed by the modern Turks! The Pontic Greek Genocide was a genocide committed against the Pontic Greeks who were living in a Greek country known as Pontos, one day the Turks signed an alliance with Nazi Germany and then they attacked Pontos killing people in cold blood, killing children, death marches, etc. The reason why they committed this was "They are Greeks and there are no Greeks in the New Turkey" which is a bit of a racist and vicious reason and also because they were Orthodox Christians and the Turks are Muslims so they did that out of hate for the Christian religions and because they were Greeks. These days the Turks deny these genocides happen and yet there is proof everywhere, in many different countries they host remembrance days for these genocides!
Turkey built their country with blood and murder!

First off I am gonna say good luck to the person who chooses to be Con! I am Greek and my ancestors were victims of the Turks who burnt their Homes and Churches and killed their families! I am also obsessed with history so I know about the Turks in some degree! Also Turks committed a genocide against my ancestors and they deny the term Genocide when it was obvious that it was a Genocide, also they also committed a genocide against the Armenians and Assyrians!
Feeding at the Zoo

Before touching on animals eating, lets address humans eating together. In the old days we sat with strangers and ate in public. Slowly but surely there is a movement for private dining. People don't want the public watching them eat, even if it is a public restruant. . http://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com...I have not talked to many snakes, I'm not Harry Potter, but I imagine they don't being watched while they eat either. Snakes inthe wild usually ambush and eat their prey in the shadows. They are cold blooded, so why do they elect to eat things in the dark? Embarrassed. Some times those rats fight back and then you have to choke down your food. Not the most suave thing to accomplish. Then lets look at the violence of the situation. School age children of that age are not recommended to watch movies or play games that have human on human violence. Is the rabbit human? No. But the it has 2 legs and 2 arms, 2 eys, ears, and a mouth. I'm sure a lot of those kids felt more empathy for the dieing screaming rabbit then the snake which has n arms. This just reinforces the Boogey Man theoryin these kids. Suggesting to them that there are monsters that will eat them up, like the snake just ate the rabbit. In this modern day age no kid has to be tuaght "the facts of life". Anyone can go to the store and buy food. They never even have to see blood. I know some people that don;t know what animal hot dogs come from. To be honest I'm not sure what hot dogs come from. Or saltine crackers, who knows? Obviously, kids of this age should not be exposed to such violence becuase they will growup and be killers. It's not something that should be shown in public. It's embarrasing to the animals.
Feeding at the Zoo

Have you ever seen a man with a beard eating a rack of ribs? That is the most disgusting thing ever. It's mind boggling how, or even if he cleans that beard. All that dripping fat and bbq suace all over the place. THAT is eating that should be kept private. There are some things the young republic of children should not be exposed to at such an early age. That kind of violence at the zoo should be rated M or 17+. You don't see those things being filmed and broadcasted on PBS? I accept this challenge and good luck to my opponent.
Do you believe Cloning is unessacery

I accept. However, Con has made two obvious errors in his debate format: (1) The resolution is asking whether I believe cloning is unnecessary. If I say yes, and since I am the best source of my own knowledge, then the resolution is affirmed. (2) Con makes a statement stating that he believes cloning is unnecessary, despite taking the Con position on which he probably meant to take Pro. By doing so he is supporting the other side and conceding his position. I hope that Con will clarify what he means by the resolution and his opening statement in order to clear up the confusion surrounding the topic at hand.
Atheism Is A Religion

Belief:1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Atheism is not a belief that something exists or is true, it's not, in fact, a belief in anything. Atheism requires proof, whereas religious faith tends to go without proof. Before I'm pointed to the bible as 'proof' by many evangelic Christians, I'd like to point out that the bible does not hold 'proof' of anything. It is a collection of fables that were written by people hundreds of years after they supposedly happened. Jesus may well have existed, we do have more evidence for him than we have for Alexander the Great, but does that mean that he did all the stuff he was supposed to have done? No. It doesn't. Atheism, however, contains a great amount of proof. Occam's razor suggests that we should agree with the idea that contains the least amount of assumptions. Compared to any religion, atheism certainly contains very few assumptions. Belief in God is an assumption because you are choosing to acknowledge the supposed existence of something that not only has never been seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched, but has not even seen agreement by the religious community on what form it takes. Atheism, however, suggests that you should not believe in anything without solid proof of its existence. That is all atheism is, the acceptance of evidence being neccessary before the acknowledgement of an event, being or object can take place. Atheism isn't just the shunning of God, it's the shunning of belief in anything without evidence. Afterall, many religions, such as [1]Bhuddism, have no God. Instead, one of their main ideas is the idea of enlightenment. Atheists do not believe in that as there is no proof, this is why atheists aren't Bhuddists either. Thus, the second definition of belief:2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something). Also does not apply in the case of atheism. Atheism is not a trust, faith, or confidence. Instead, it is the lack of those things because all of those things suggest a lack of evidence. Atheism is so often paired with science because science, too, refuses to accept things without strong proof. Does this mean that science is the God of atheism or some such nonsense? No, of course not. Atheism does not have a system of belief in any way. Therefore, atheism cannot be a religion. Unfortunately, this debate has turned into a semantic war on terror. However, due to the nature of the debate, it had to be this way. Sources:[1]'. http://www.buddhanet.net...
Atheism Is A Religion

Athiesm is not a religion. First I would like to take the opportunity to thank my opponent for starting this debate, I'm sure we can have a fun, intellectual time.All I need to do to win this debate is prove that athiesm does not fall under the required criteria to be classified as a religion.I will start by defining what a religion is:A religion is[1]1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Athiests do not believe in and worship any 'superhuman' controlling power. Thus, atheists do not fit into this classification. Before any attempt is made to say 'what about science or maths' or some-such nonsense, neither of those things can be judged to be a 'superhuman controlling power,' and, even if they were, not all atheists accept science or/and maths unquestionably. I admit, most do, but not all, so it's not possible to say that atheists 'worship' or 'believe' in any subject necessarily.[1]2. A particular system of faith and worship. Again, it cannot be said that atheism is a particular system of faith or worship because atheism is the lack of faith (the belief in something generally without proof). Again, atheists do not all worship anything in particular.[1]3. A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. This is the definition which can give Pro most cause for hope. It is possible to suggest that atheists are 'interested' in disproving the existene of a God. However, this is not always the case. A lot of atheists simply do not care what other people believe in. You are allowed to believe in whatever it is that you want to believe in as long as it does not hurt anybody else is the general stance often taken. There's a reason that very few people have ever had atheists knocking on their door trying to destroy their faith. Whereas the religious tend to make it their business to study their religion in depth, atheists simply choose not to believe in a God. Many have reasons for this, others would just quote 'common sense' if asked. So no, atheism does not count as 'a pursuit or interested followed with great devotion' either.Your turn! Sources:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
Should school chairs be comfier

Allow me to clarify a few things before we get started, because you misunderstood my original argument. I never said chairs should be harder, you might have misconceived that from my statement of "fire plastic". I'm not sure about YOUR school, but this is what the chairs at my school: The spine of the chair is VERY bendable, along with basically the rest of the chair. The plastic is extremely slippery too, which just makes it easier for students to slump and slouch. Since it allows slouching and free movement, we can see this as a more comfortable chair. "That being said if they had softer chairs they would be moving around less and be paying attention more."Absolutely not. More comfortable chairs would only encourage moving around more and paying attention less. While sitting on cushioning, the brain recognizes this feeling from, say, your living room couch or your bed. The brain then urges itself into a "laid back" mode. I will see your response before making further arguments.
Should school chairs be comfier

I do agree that it would be more costly, but it is better for the human body. If you sit on a hard chair for too long your spine can be injured. You know how grandmas sometimes lecture you on posture. That's because it is important. If you are sitting on a hard chair your spine can be damaged. Also its harder for kids to be comfortable in hard chairs. That being said if they had softer chairs they would be moving around less and be paying attention more. To be honest I think that schools worry way too much on the little things but are too caught up on stuff like weather kids are using the right pencil on tests and don't do stuff about the big things like fights and bullies or the way that students learn