BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no unchanging, separate self.

Since Strycora forfeited his last round I don’t feel it would be fair to add more arguments or argue the points any further. Instead I’ll just sum up. Strycora claimed that there is no self or soul and I claimed the opposite. Strycora provided no evidence or reasons in favor of his position, but he did attempt to argue against the three arguments I gave. I gave a philosophical argument; 1. My body and my soul are the same thing if and only if they share all the same properties. 2. My soul has a property my body does not. 3. Therefore my soul and my body are not identical. I also pointed to good body of scientific evidence that shows something survives the death of the body, and I also gave an argument that the non-existence of the self cannot be rationally affirmed. 1. If there is no soul or self, then determinism is almost certainly true. 2. If determinism is true, no one actually thinks about anything. 3. Rationality requires thought. 4. Therefore the non-existence of the self/soul cannot be rationally affirmed. My conclusions. I don’t think that Strycora adequately responded to my arguments. I really wish he would have explained his positions and objections and given some arguments in favor of his position as that would have made for a much more productive debate. None the less, I don’t think he knocked down any of my three arguments and he didn’t give any arguments in favor of his own position so it seems to me my arguments carry the day here. It’s unfortunate that Strycora forfeited two rounds as I’d rather claim my arguments stand in light of good objections than in light of silence. Hopefully next time we will be able to have a more engaging debate.
Why schools should regularly check kids school bags and lockers.

I answered the question. The school will still be unsafe. Besides, the parent should be enforcing this. It's an opportunity to be helpful that will be far better than a school trying to take that role. To keep kids the most safe that can be kept, they must be given personal reasons to make good decisions. Having these rules imposed by seemingly inhuman authorities only leads to resentment and rebellion. Keep in mind, this also violates the rights of these children. To do so is unconstitutional. In order to avoid setting a precedent for ignoring the constitution, we must avoid these checks. However, the entire point is moot. These searches are impossible to administer. Even if my other arguments collapse, which they won't, my opponent has to demonstrate this as false, otherwise there is no point.
Why schools should regularly check kids school bags and lockers.

I'd love for them to be safe, but this really won't do that. Besides the fact that this is theoretically impossible and, therefore, the point is moot, it will invade the privacy of students and further remove parent from child. This should never be reality. You might get a few drug busts, and that'd be it. Kids are smart. If you give them a system to crack, they will crack it. Don't give them a system to crack, you are a parent. It is your responsibility to tell them no. It is your responsibility to monitor them. Otherwise, this just leads to students developing unhealthy habits that flourish after they graduate from public school. This will not keep kids safe. This will only delay the inevitable end, but make that end worse.
Why schools should regularly check kids school bags and lockers.

I don't think that schools should regularly check bags or lockers. There are three reasons why I believe this. Reason 1: Privacy Every student has a right to maintain their own personal privacy. Unwarranted search and seizure of any property, especially performed by a non-officer, is unconstitutional. While schools do own lockers, they do not own the bags of their students. Therefore, to search the bags is an invasion of privacy and is actively harming the students. Reason 2: Practicality When looking at the world through a pragmatic lens, I don't see any feasible way to implement these searches efficiently. If every student were to have their bag thoroughly checked on a regular schedule, not only will this take colossal amounts of time and a larger workforce, the checks can be easily circumvented by not bringing drugs to school that day. Before we condemn the idea, let's see if random checks are a feasible option. To be honest, random checks can only go wrong. Students will be racially profiled. This will lead to the actually harmful students being able to go on without notice. Reason 3: This is the Job of the Parents When it comes down to it, a school has one responsibility: to teach their students. A school should not be held accountable for any unprovoked actions of the students. However, a parent should be responsible for not raising their children properly. Shifting this burden to schools only further splits the gap between parent and child. In many, many studies, it has come to light that active parent involvement in the life of their children decreases the likelihood of students committing crimes. Therefore, shifting the burden from parents to schools actively decreases the safety of students, rather than increasing it.
Why schools should regularly check kids school bags and lockers.

Why I think teacher and schools should regularly check student school bags and locker is: The students don't own the lockers, so the teachers have the right to look inside their students locker with permission from their boss. If a student has drugs and wants to sell them, you HAVE the right to go inside their bags or lockers and check if they don't have any drugs or weapons they can use. Why I think they should look through kids school bags and lockers is because if I have kids and some other kid tries to sell them drugs, I would want them to tell me and I will go to thee school and ask if they can do regularly searches through kids bag and lockers because I want my kids to be safe and I know other parents would like to see their kid be safe. Schools should do this because they are always talking about the safety of the students, THIS IS PART OF THEIR SAFETY! If kids died or get addicted to drugs, that their fault for failing to keep their students safe from harm's way. So going through you students school bag and lockers is a very good way to keep your students safe. That way I think schools should go through kids locker and I hope you choose this side.
IVF Debate

In this day and age it isn't rare for couples to get divorced. With divorce always comes the problem of who gets what and who controls what. One of the possessions that can be debated for ownership are the other frozen eggs the couple have due to the IVF. Since both the father and mother contributed to the creation of the eggs, they both have an equal ownership over them. Although complications come in over who has more ownership over them and who decides what is done with them. For example, the mother might want to donate them to other couples while the father might want them destroyed. The production of these extra eggs causes too much legal issues on deciding on who has ultimate say over what. If the eggs had never been made in the first place than none of these, and any previous issues discussed, would have happened. ( https://books.google.com... )
IVF Debate

IVF may be slightly unpleasant, but no more unpleasant than trying to conceive naturally if there are problems. It involves the female receiving shots that suspend the menstrual cycle. Then she also receives shots of FSH that will cause multiple eggs to mature. Then another shot that contains LH that causes mature eggs to become ready for fertilization. Then there is an ultrasound where a needle is inserted and eggs are withdrawn. At some point the day before, the male partner"s sperm must be collected. Then the egg and sperm are mixed in a lab. Then they are inserted into the woman"s uterus. (shadygrovefertillity.com) This procedure is such a small price to pay for the ability to be a parent. It ensures a healthy baby and bypasses any reproductive problems the parents may have. IVF opens a whole new world of possibilities. Also it allows homosexual couples and single women to have babies, whereas they never could without it. IVF is well worth it to become a parent.
IVF Debate

When doing the IVF procedure there are many times when the mother will actually give birth to more than one child. This is an issue since both the parents were only expecting and budgeting for one child to be born. This then means they must spend money they might not have to cover expenses. Besides money, having multiple births can also cause many risks in women. There is a higher chance of having a miscarriage, anemia, or heavy bleeding. Women are more likely to go into labour early and would need to get a Caesarean section in order to give birth. Women are also three times more likely to get gestational diabetes if they are carrying more than one child. There is also 25% chance risk that women carrying more than one child will develop pregnancy related high blood pressure. ( http://www.nhs.uk... )
IVF Debate

Embryos that are fertilized during IVF, but are not used should be stored. This way a couple who wants to use them to have another child can conceive without going through the entire process again.(fssc.com.au) It is really efficient actually. If a couple decides not to have another child then the eggs would be kind to donate. That way if a couple still can"t conceive then they can go through the wonder of pregnancy. If the couple doesn't like that idea, then the eggs should be destroyed without question. Couples should discuss beforehand what would happen if the two divorced. But what they want to do with their eggs should be of their choosing.
IVF Debate

During the procedure multiple embryos are created, but most often only one or two of them are used. The others are then frozen and stored and it is up to the parents to decide what to do with them, but this causes great controversy. Many people believe that each embryo is a life so it should not be frozen for later use. How do you chose which eggs to freeze and to use as they all represent a child? Afterwards there are multiple routes the parents can take, but they have issues of their own. Parents can freeze the eggs indefinitely, but costs will be extremely high. You can also thaw out and discard the embryos which has the ethical issue of destroying potential lives. Parents can also donate the eggs to other couples, but then that raises the issue of that technically that is still the original parents' child since they contain their DNA. ( http://www.resolve.org... )
IVF Debate

Genetically screening embryos enables the healthiest baby possible to be born, when the parents are ready. It doesn"t hurt a child at all. This means that parents will not have to struggle with the problems of raising a sick or disabled child. (lajollaivf.com) It doesn"t create elites, but instead a healthy generation with less disease, fewer disabilities, and stronger bodies. Also it allows couples to insure that their child has a high chance of surviving in the womb. Since there are multiple embryos, the doctors have a choice of which ones to implant. As technology develops, couples will be able to more specifically choose traits of their children as well, which could make some parents more satisfied.
IVF Debate

Many ethical dilemmas can occur from the IVF procedure. For one it would eventually end the social structures set up by society. It would get rid of the whole idea of a nuclear family and having a family by traditional means. This idea could also pressure more women into having children as they have easier means of extracting DNA to where infertility isn't a strong excuse. The procedure can also be deemed unethical in many religious groups due to this process being unnatural. It would, in a sense, be "replacing the divinely ordained means of making life with technological processes" ( http://www.pbs.org... ) Babies born from this procedure would also become elitist of the next generation as they are chosen to have the best traits they can have. Compared with children that are naturally conceived, children born of IVF will be superior as their traits are not randomized. This would then create a split society between the elite and normal people.
IVF Debate

IVF allows doctors to bypass any problem that arises. It means that no matter if the females fallopian tubes are blocked or if the man has weak sperm, a child can still be made. The procedure makes sure sperm/egg contact is made successfully. Also it means that the couple won"t have to struggle with other, less effective methods of conceiving a child. As IVF becomes more developed, it allows doctors to find ways to help infertile couples conceive in the future and understand problems (lajollaivf.com). Every year, IVF becomes more effective. IVF simply goes around most problems with fertility.
IVF Debate

Although IVF can have its benefits, there are just too many risks involved with it that make it problematic. Most women that decided to go through with IVF have some sort of reaction to the drug. It can be effects such as nausea, bloating, hot flashes, and ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome. ( http://www.nhs.uk... ) Babies born this way are also at a risk for negative health effects such as heart risks, behavioral disorders, and emotional disorders. There is also the risk of the mother having a premature birth due to her infertility. ( http://creatingafamily.org... ) This is why the IVF procedure shouldn't be conducted since it has too many risks.
IVF Debate

The best benefit for IVF can be stated like this: "The ultimate advantage of IVF is achieving a successful pregnancy and a healthy baby." (createhealth.org) The babies produced from IVF are normally rather healthy and the pregnancies are a blessing for couples with infertility. Couples with nearly all different kinds of infertility can be made into parents with this procedure. If a couple is unable to naturally conceive then they can still have their own, biologically related child. Also with the new technology available, the healthiest embryos are selected (fssc.com.au). This means that a couple can avoid having a baby with major health problems before the child even begins to develop. Also IVF allows single women, homosexual couples, and surrogates to have children without as much hassle. Without IVF, there was no chance of those groups to have children who were even slightly related to them. IVF is an excellent procedure for anyone looking to conceive.
If "styles make fights" in boxng; Mayweather beats Pacquiao

I am very disappointed by how this debate turned out. I was trying to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt but now it is indisputable what he or she was trying to do. If you read my opponent's argument in Round 1, it is clear that they are trying to deconstruct the language of my resolution as opposed to the substance. My opponent has showed no desire to debate boxing but instead wanted to challenge my use of the word "style". "Style" is often defined as the strategic approach a fighter takes during a bout." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) "While all boxers utilize different moves and punches to some extent, the specific way they fight is called their style." (source: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com...) "There is a commonly accepted theory about the success each of these boxing styles has against the others. The general rule is similar to the game Rock, Paper, Scissors - each boxing style has advantages over one, but disadvantages against the other. A famous clichï¿½ amongst boxing fans and writers is "styles make fights"." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Whether or not this is the proper use of the word "style" is irrelevant. That is what the word means in boxing lingo. I dare say even the most casual boxing fan would have known that. This mistake leads me to believe (and I hate to say this) that my opponent may know little if anything about boxing, and perhaps should not have challenged me. Please vote for Pro. For those who are interested, I'd like to continue on why I think Mayweather would beat Pacquiao: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Pacqiao seems to be vulnerable to straight right hands. The first video is a compilation of Juan Manuel Marquez hitting Pacquiao with several straight right hands in both of their fights. Many of Pacquiao's recent opponents have lacked a good straight right hand. Oscar De La Hoya and Miguel Cotto are left-handed fighters who box in the orthodox stance, which means their straight right is not their dominant hand. Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito are both pressure in-fighters who mostly use hooks and uppercuts and rarely if ever throw straight rights. Joshua Clottey and Shane Mosley do have good striaght rights, but both of them were too defensive in their fights with Pacquiao to throw them. Mayweather has a excellent straight right hand which he loves throwing (see the second video). Mayweather can step-back and counter Pacquiao all night with straight right hands, like Marquez did, and win the fight.
If "styles make fights" in boxng; Mayweather beats Pacquiao

Thank you for your challenge. I would like point out that the subject of this debate is the Mayweather-Pacquiao matchup. You may attempt to undercut the notion that "styles make fights" but you must do so with respect to this matchup. I would like to keep this debate relevant to a hypothetical Mayweather-Pacquiao fight. If styles don't make fights then explain why that premise is wrong in this particular case, not just in general. Also try to use evidence to support your argument. I didn't coin the phrase "styles make fights" myself, the term is an old saying in boxing and it's true. You say there is no such thing as different boxing "styles", only boxing "skills". According to you all boxers have the share the same technique and strategy but differ in their skill sets. You could not possibly be more wrong. Some boxers are more aggressive, while others are more defensive. Some boxers try to beat their opponents to the punch, while others let their opponents throw first and try to counter. Some boxers try to get inside on their opponents, while others try to keep distance between them and their opponents. Some boxers tend to be flat-footed and stationary, while others are moving targets. These are not boxing attributes like speed, power, stamina, or chin. They are completely different approaches to boxing. http://www.youtube.com... In the first video, a developer of the boxing video game Fight Night Round 4 gives an overview of the different boxing styles that exist and references real boxers as examples of each style. Here's an article about the different styles as well: http://www.boxingrepublic.com... There is also differences in boxing technique, including different stances, guards, offensive tactics, and defensive maneuvers: http://en.wikipedia.org... Boxing styles do exist. To argue the contrary would be absurd. The notion that the more skilled fighter always wins the fight isn't always true. Sonny Liston knocked out Floyd Patterson in the first round of both their fights. Patterson had better boxing skills than Liston. A more recent example: Vernon Forrest out-boxed Shane Mosley twice during Shane's prime, then in his next fight got knocked out in the third round by Nicaraguan brawler Ricardo Mayorga who had amateurish boxing skill (read the story here: http://www.eastsideboxing.com...). You can see the fight for yourself, it's the second video. Listen carefully to the commentary. In those instances the style matchup had a greater influence on the fight than the difference in skill. http://www.youtube.com... "Styles make fights" because each style has its strengths and weaknesses. Mayweather's style is a greater challenge for Pacquiao than visa versa. Therefore, Mayweather should win.
If "styles make fights" in boxng; Mayweather beats Pacquiao

I look forward to a good debate.Before I begin, pay close attention to the resolution. I do not have to prove that Pacquiao beats Mayweather to win this debate. The wording of the resolution says that "If styles makes fights". Mayweather beating pacquiao is based on this statement, if I adequately show the idea that style makes fights is incorrect, the entire affirmative is proven wrong.Style doesn't make fights, skill makes fights, my opponent misses the forest for the trees. Style is simply a way to say a player is skilled. There are no true "styles". Each fighter is skilled to different degrees in every trait necessary to win at boxing, what my opponent calls styles are really just talking about a facet of a players skill, a part of their aggregate way of fighting. Fighters must incorporate all of their skills to win fights, saying "styles make fights" would be like saying one candy makes for a candy jar. It is the mixing of all skills that decide fights, or, what my opponent calls "making fights", not singular areas of skill he calls styles.The more skilled fighter is the one that will win out. A fighters aggregate skill is what decides a fight, not a singular "style" of how they fight. Effectively, style does not make fights.
If "styles make fights" in boxng; Mayweather beats Pacquiao

First and foremost I want to make it clear that I am a fan of both Floyd and Manny, and have no bias towards either. This is my objective analysis of the match-up based on their fighting styles. If "styles make fights" one has to ask which boxer has the stylistic advantage over the other? Is Pacman's aggressive flurrying style better suited for Mayweather? Or is Money May's defensive counterpunching style better suited for Pacquiao? The boxers that gave Pacquiao the most trouble in recent history have been Erik Morales (in their first fight) and Juan Manuel Marquez. Both of them are boxing technicians and counterpunchers like Mayweather (although not as fast or as "slick" as him). Erik Morales was passed his prime after his epic and physicality exhausting trilogy with Marco Antonio Barrera. He was a 9 to 5 underdog against Pacquiao for their first fight (http://boxrec.com...). Despite this Morales got the upset by out-boxing Manny, and gave him his most recent loss. (watch the first video for the highlights of that fight) *Manny would later beat Morales twice when Morales was further passed his prime. The point is to consider the fact that the last fighter to beat Manny was a technically sound counterpuncher* http://www.youtube.com... In the first fight Juan Manuel Marquez had with Pacquiao, he was knockdown three times in first round and suffered a broken nose. Yet he would go on to out-box Pacquiao in almost all of the following rounds. The fight ended in a controversial draw. In their second fight, Marquez's counterpunching style would yet again cause Manny difficulty, and he was getting out-boxed for much of that fight too. It was a knockdown of Marquez in the third round that played a significant role in Pacquiao winning a controversial split decision. Many prominent boxing experts, including Dan Rafael, Max Kellerman, Kieran Mulvaney, and Brian Kenny, believed Marquez had won the fight (http://boxrec.com...). http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... The second and third videos are a thorough analysis by SaiBoxTV of why Marquez's style causes Manny so much trouble, and how Pacquiao's tactics might not have changed since then. If boxing technicians and counterpunchers like Morales and Marquez have given Pacquiao such trouble, wouldn't Mayweather, currently the world's greatest boxing technician and defence specialist, be a serious challenge for Manny? Doesn't Manny need to modify his style or strategy in order to beat Floyd? http://www.youtube.com... Mayweather on the other hand seems to be at his best when fighting aggressive boxers who come at him or try to stand toe-to-toe with him (watch the forth video for examples). His style is tailor-made for defending and countering against aggressors. Which means Floyd doesn't have to adjust his defensive style in order to deal with Manny's aggressive style. This is why I believe Mayweather has a stylistic advantage on Pacquiao. If "styles make fights" Mayweather should win.