BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion caused most wars

"I propose no rules, beside the logical: no ad hominem, straw man, so forth and follow the debate structure you set out. I will adhere to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of war in this debate, namely: "Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state" [1]. Good luck.
Should conscription be introduced into Australia

-------------Clarification--------------- Firstly, my mentioning of the AESAN Alliance was to provide a link between this round and the previous one. I apologise for sources. Information regarding Chinese military: http://en.wikipedia.org... Information regarding time for reinforcements: None found. Heard from fellow debater about the same topic. However for a significant force to arrive it would take time, although no exact figures could be found. Indonesia is being the main front. For example, Chinese troops would be located on Indonesia territory, thus I'm referring to Indonesia as it and whatever troops are on it's territory. -----------Rebuttal------------------- If the US and China were to become involved, China could force the US to pay its debt, ruling them bankrupt and unable to participate in the war. Military expenditures account for nothing if the chinese armed forces [1] has three times as many men as the american armed forces [2]. In the constitution, conscription is legal. It's not slavery for it to be legal for the government to conscript. If you don't like it, then why are you a citizen of that nation? Toughen up. Its legal, and being a citizen, you have agreed to abide by all laws, and if you don't, punishments can occur. Not necessarily, as I stated earlier, "i.e, If the government believes the nation is under threat or Australia comes under direct attack, not if we attack another nation." This does not mean that Australians are discriminating against those that do not support war. Conscription was in my definition as being passed, but then only enforced when under direct attack. How is defending oneself discriminatory? In regards to your third argument, there is therefore no reason to debate, am I correct? A debate is the argument between two peoples differing opinion. If these things were objective, then there would be no need for debate, as it would be like arguing if 1+1=2, or if 1+1=5. --------------------Main arguments---------------------------- The AESAN Alliance is a major threat to Australia. If one of them were to attack, then Australia would be initially overwhelmed. There are many reasons why they would want to attack. 1. They can easily neutralise the Americans by forcing them to pay their debts to China. 2. Australia has everything. Mining resources, wool, livestock, good economy. Why not attack us? 3. Most of our (Australia's) exports are to Indonesia. If they took it, they wouldn't have to pay anything, it would just be theirs. Manpower is another crucial point. Australian males available for military service - 4,999,988 males, age 16–49 (2009 est.[3]), Indonesian males fit for military service52,000,000 males, age 18–49 (2008 est.[4]), Do I make myself clear? Australia cannot survive! Indonesia will roll Australia, and if China forces America to pay their debts, then there is no way Australians can defend. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should conscription be introduced into Australia

I agree with Con's new definition of conscription, understanding mutually that it is in terms of the military. Isolation is a major reason why conscription in Australia should be introduced, or at least seriously considered. The closest nation to Australia that isn't part of the Commonwealth is Indonesia. Australia has varying relations with Indonesia, depending on wool and livestock trading. It is inevitable that Indonesia may consider an attack on Australian territory. The population of Indonesia is crammed into a small space, and Australia would be the ideal place to gain new territory to solve some of the overpopulation problems. If an attack was to occur, the Australian armed forces would probably be able to withstand an initial attack, but later attacks may prove too strong. The time that it would take for a substantial amount of US forces to fly here would take a week. That may prove to be too long if the entire AESAN Alliance (or even just a few of them) made a full scale attack on the Australian mainland. Even if only China launched a full scale attack on Australia, an invasion could occur within three days. Without conscription, how could we ever even attempt to fight a Chinese invasion force? Australian population: 21 million. Chinese Military: 300 million. Perhaps with conscription an initial force could be taken care of, until some backup arrives. Although an invasion of such scale would mean inevitable defeat, conscription would provide better odds.
Should conscription be introduced into Australia

The resolution when not put in the form of a question (major pet peeve of mine) can be stated as follows: Conscription should be introduced in Australia. My opponent as Pro will defend the resolution while I as Con will argue against it. ===Definitions===I accept my opponent's definition of conscription, however I feel as though the term should in the resolution needs to be defined and so I will take the opportunity to do so here. Should will mean "Used to express obligation or duty". [1]===Arguments===Contention I. Self ownership. Being forced to participate in the military is akin to slavery in that one is forced to perform labor or services which one would not do if one were given a choice. This violates the principle that people are the sole owners of their own bodies. Contention II. Political and religious freedom. Conscription violates the political freedom of those who hold anti-war political sentiments i. e. pacifists or anarchists. In the same vein, conscription violates the religious principles of those who take their religion to also imply pacifism i. e. Jainists, Christian pacifists[2], Quakers, etc. Contention III. Moral nihilism. Since there are no objective moral truths or facts, the term should in conjunction with expressing legitimate duty is rendered incoherent. Therefore it is a falsehood that anyone should do or not do anything. As per my opponent's rules, I will not introduce either substantive arguments (these are mere summaries) or rebut the arguments my opponent has brought so far. I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate and turn the debate back over to him. ===Sources===[1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should conscription be introduced into Australia

No elaborations on arguments past summarising sentences or rebuttals. "Should conscription be introduced into Australia" The definitions of the terms is as follows: Conscription - Compulsory enlistment for state service, typically into the military. [1] I am not arguing that we should start conscripting now, however that a law should be passed legalising it, and therefore becoming effective whenever the government decides. i. e, If the government believes the nation is under threat or Australia comes under direct attack, not if we attack another nation. The outline for my arguments: 1. Isolation. The fact that Australia is so isolated it would take too long for allied forces such as the US or the Commonwealth to arrive before a potential invasion. 2. AESAN Alliance. An alliance between the South-East Asian countries. For the purposes of this debate I will be referring to the AESAN Alliance as an alliance between Singapore, Vietnam, China, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. 3. Differences in manpower. The sheer differences in manpower between our alliances and the AESAN alliance. I wish the best of luck to the Negative side of the argument, may the best arguments win. Sources. [1] . http://www.google.com.au... (Definition shown at top of page) My spelling is Australian english. (I apologise for lack of structure, this is my first debate)
Cell phones in school

Cell phones not only have the ability to help students in class but it also gives them an easy access to emergency services if an emergency were to occur. With students allowed to use their phones in school they all have the ability to call 911 at any moment, giving them a safety net as well as a reassurance. Cell phones also can help to spark conversation and ideas within the classroom. Most cell phones come with internet access nowadays and can be used to search topics for discussion as well as seeing other people's points of view on the matter. It also is a good research tool for studying as well as gaining new knowledge outside of the classroom. Cellphones also can be useful in the classroom with their full calendars that can be used to help keep track on schoolwork, school trips, and upcoming tests and quizzes. They come with a full calculator, and in some cases, come equipped with a full dictionary as well as converters of US and foreign currency. Picture and video capabilities could be used to make projects more exciting and can spark the creativity that a student can't find with simply researching and writing a paper. Education applications can help to study, while making learning fun. They can be downloaded for cheap, and sometimes even free. They cover every subject from reading to math and are accessible to every student with a smart phone. Finally being able to text brings things like poll websites into effect, making class participation easier for everyone and allowing even the shy students to answer questions without fear. It also can be used to take notes and can easily be sent to friends who were missing in class, or just shared for comparison and easy access to what each other has learned.
Cell phones in school

Should we ban cell phones in school?. (2004). NEA Today, 22(5), 42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. This article overall shares the thoughts that teachers have on cell phones in the classroom: Cell phones should absolutely be banned from school, no questions asked. My philosophy is that we lived a hundred years without them and we can live another hundred years without them if we chose to do so. They are nothing but a disruption to class instruction. The student (if he or she is waiting for a call) thinks about nothing but receiving that call, therefore blocking out anything that is being said, and it's simply not a necessity for being successful in school. ERICH OSTROWSKI Fourth-grade Cell phones, like many other electronic devices, can be a distraction. Students need to learn when and where a cell phone can be appropriate. It is rude to the presenter when some person has a cell phone ringing during his or her presentation. Students are often easily distracted as it is, and a cell phone going off in a classroom can end the learning process as effectively as any fire drill. This is one of those life lessons we can teach them. Technology is a wonderful and useful tool when used properly. I can think of circumstances where a student needs to be on call during school. That is where the office and secretaries come in. KRISTOPHER KAUFMAN Spanish teacher, Northern Tioga School District, Pennsylvania As opposed to the two teachers above who believe cell phones should not be allowed in schools at all, Mindy Siddell brings up an good point. She believes cell phones should be allowed in schools for emergency purposes or after school activities, however, in the classroom there is no need for a cell phone to ever be used: Cell phones should be banned from classrooms but not from schools. When classes are in session, cell phones aren't. When a student is maneuvering around after-school activities and pick-up times, cell. phones are extremely handy. The school should not be held accountable if the cell phone is stolen. As with any other possession, it's the student's responsibility. If the student is too young to keep track of a cell phone, the student is too young to have one. MINDY SIDDELL student in teacher education, Seward, Nebraska -Olivia Piermarini
Cell phones in school

The use of cell phones in school can create an enviornment based on: distruption to instruction, cheating, and the use of pornography. I feel that teachers cannot fulfill full obligations in a classroom if students are being distracted by the use of a cell phone. DISMANTES, T. (2010). RECENT COURT RULING REGARDING STUDENT USE OF CELL PHONES IN TODAY'S SCHOOLS. "Education", 131(2), 404-406. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Cyberbullying and sexting may also be an issue. Cyberbullying is the use of electronic communication technologies to intentionally engage in repeated or widely disseminated cruel acts towards another that results in emotional harm. Sexting is whenever someone sends a nude image via cell phone texting and is also a type of cyberbullying. This can happen both on & off of school grounds--anywhere that students are physically together. "Electronic aggression is a contributing factor in altercations that occur on campus and creates an enviornment in which students do not feel safe coming to school or are unable to focus effectively on their studies (pg. 76)." Willard, N. (2011). SCHOOL RESPONSE TO CYBERBULLYING AND SEXTING: THE LEGAL CHALLENGES. "Bringham Young University Education and Law Journal," (1) 75-125. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. -Courtney Carlisle
Cell phones in school

School Cell Phone Ban Causes Uproar February 11, 2009 6:30 PM CBSNEWS http://www.cbsnews.com... "My mother, she needs me to have the cell to call me and check up on me," said Steven Cao, 16, a sophomore who lives in Staten Island and attends Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan. He called the ban stupid. Some parents would prefer a policy that lets students have cell phones but prohibits their use in classes. Students insist that most classmates use their cell phones responsibly, and they brush off criticism that previous generations got along fine without them. "It's kind of ridiculous that we think we can't survive without a cell phone when people did it for thousands of years," said Elisa Muyl, 14, a freshman at Stuyvesant. "But now that they have this invention, we should use it." Cell phones in schools http://www.cellutips.com... The Good Feeling of security – Knowing that your children are reachable anytime is quite reassuring for a parent, especially after events such as the Columbine shooting and the September 11th tragedy. It brings families together – Families don't seem to have much time to spend together anymore. With overtime and after-school activities, having the ability to communicate with any one of your family member helps bringing families together. Cellphones are convenient – Everybody is more busy nowadays. Students are involved in activities after school, and practices and meeting time tend to vary a lot. It is very convenient for a student who does not have access to public transportation to call their parents for a ride when they need one. Morgan Warner
Rebecca Black's "Friday" is the greatest religious song created in the past decade.

"You did not define 'religious' in either of your first two rounds. On top of that - I did bring up definitions in the first round" It was my impression that words such as "religious" and "song", of which almost everyone knows he meanings, definitions were not needed. When a word with an obvious definition comes up, and there are no definitions, there is no need to define it. When it's defined later and incorrectly, a debate can easily be derailed [1]. I'd be happy to debate you on what makes a song religious some other time, but I currently have several other debates going on. The obvious definition, however, is "of or pertaining to religion". "YOU have the burden of proving that the song was religious" I don't, a song or poem can be interpreted more than one way. Friday gave a very clear physical experience, that could easily mean plenty of things metaphorically. I happen to interpret it religiously, even if you don't. "I was just pointing out that your statement that its cloudiness helped it be great was completely baseless and could actually be used against it." But in no way does it hinder it. The amount of people that have been to school on a Friday is greater than the number of people who are Hindi, and the song relates to more people when taken literally. This helps widen the audience, and makes the song easier to relate to. While your song may be more vague, and easier to interpret as religious, it is incredibly repetitive, much more so than Friday. This clearly highlights one of the biggest negatives of religion, indoctrination and hypnosis. While the other themes you pointed out were valid, this one is clearly one of the more prominent. 1. http://www.debate.org...
Rebecca Black's "Friday" is the greatest religious song created in the past decade.

"It is my opinion... I believe... to be religious" This entire second paragraph should be ignored, as it is made clear by Con several times it is based solely on opinion [1]. Definitions don't belong in the second round, much less those based solely on opinion. "Patrice Wilson, the writer of the song, does not follow Hinduism, but he is instead a Christian" Even accepting your completely ridiculous limitations on what makes a song religious, this is totally irrelevant. Her parents paid money to have the song written and produced [2], and could have told them to put whatever themes they wanted in there. The parents could have said "make it Hindi, but so incredibly not obvious only a genius could realize the hidden message". "I could not find one single example of a bus stop being used as a symbol of/metaphor for Hinduism" People can make their own metaphors, sit doesn't have to already exist in the Hindu culture. "Its religiousness is not obvious - in fact, its almost nonexistent - and thus, fewer people are likely to view it as religious" My argument was that it is not obvious, and that, because of this, people of other religions can interpret their own way, and aren't put off by the religiousness of it. I see no flaws with your interpretation, and happily accept "Doin' it Right" as religious. My opponent has not explained why it is a good religious song. My opponent makes no arguments for why "Doin' it Right" is a good religious song, simply claiming it is one, therefor not even close to meeting his BoP. 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://blogs.howstuffworks.com...
Rebecca Black's "Friday" is the greatest religious song created in the past decade.

Hello to my opponent. As wished by my opponent, I will simply write a few sentences summarizing my acceptance and stating the song that I believe is the greatest religious song of the past decade. Firstly, I agree to oppose Pro's resolution that "Rebecca Black's "Friday" is the greatest religious song created in the past decade. " Since my opponent left the term "song" undefined, I have no clue as to whether my opponent wishes to include instrumentals or not. My original song choice was the instrumental "Inchworm" by Battles. This music does not include words, however, and thus I realize it is not a song under some more strict definitions of the word. After a thorough brainstorming session, I have decided that the song "Doing It Right" by the electronic-music duo Daft Punk, from their album Random Access Memories, is the greatest religious song created in the past decade.
Abortion should not be legal

The idea of abortion has been at the front and center of American politics and it is hard to believe that you actually would be ok with a pregnant women killing her embroyo or fetus because she would be unable to raise the baby and that her mistake of having unprotected sex should be forgotten so she can continue with her life. Even if the women was raped it is foolish to kill another because she was a victim of rape. Is it justified for the people who were tricked by Bernie Madoff to kill someone. I think not. There is nothing wrong with putting the newborn into an orphanage? It is incredulous to believe that you would rather take a life away so an irresponsible woman or a troubled rapist can continue with there life; meanwhile the innocent baby cannot even start there own life. Beethoven was one of the greatest composers of all time. He had three siblings that were deaf, two who were blind and one sibling that was mentally retarded. Most people would have told his mother that was infected with syphillis that she probably would have been better off with an abortion. But she then would have killed one of the greatest composers of all time. How many other greats to be have we killed? At least 46 million last year and probably another 46 million this year. This lies on the irresponsible actions of the parents. Abortion is not birth control. Abortion is not a backup plan. Abortion is immoral, murder and even detrimental to our society socially and intellectually. If you had the right to live why should every other embroyo and fetus
Abortion should not be legal

I accept all the rules and regulations. My opponent seemed to fail to give the definitions so I will do so. Definitions:Abortion - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. My opponent goes against Abortion being legal therefore we can conclude he/she wishes it was illegal. Therefore I will define the following. Illegal - Contrary to or forbidden by law. Thank you and good luck.