BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Hello Sir... I am against abortion myself, but I think this will be good practice for the future as I am on a competitive debate team. Without further a do, my arguments 1) Victims of rape should not be obliged to keep the baby. Not only are they scared for life by being such violated in that manner, but they are subject to be outcasts from society 2) SOURCE: Princeton https://www.princeton.edu... They state that the embryo is developing the baby, not the baby itself. the definition you satted was clearly stating an embryo. Embryo only develops the baby, not the baby itself. So getting rid of the embryo means you taking away a potential of life, when things like miscarriages can happen, which would demoralize a women more 3) More people are in favor or abortion than are not. If congress votes no, then social uproar will increase, which will ruin Trump political capital, and if he has weak political capital, he can't get things done like deals w/countries. 4) Abortion is up to the women, if she wants the baby she has it. If she doesn't want it, she doesn't need to have. Too much federal control would disrupt the people CONCLUDING ARGUMENT An embryo is not considered life in the eyes of Princeton. We should not subject these victims of rape to having more stress in their life. Thank you.
Abortion

Abortion has been a very controversial topic for a long time. For those who do not know what an abortion is, the dictionary defines it as "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy". In other words, ending the baby's life before it is born. First round is for acceptance and opening arguments. Rounds 2,3, and 4 are for rebuttals and counterarguments, and round 5 is for final countering and conclusions. As implied, I will be taking the con side, meaning that I am against abortion. It is nothing less than killing of another human being, and unless continuing through a pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, ending a human life is not the answer.
Musical education should not be removed from public schools.

The reason why art programs are the first to be cut instead of "Chemistry" and "Algebra" (as suggested by my opponent) is because most art subject are hobbies and something that only some children enjoy. It is also a subject that is dependent not entirely on how much effort you put in but also a certain level of skill. One can not honestly tell me that it is more important for a student to have a great musical education and appreciation and yet not understand anything about chemistry or even algebra. Though there are many life paths that students may later on decide upon which may not require either chemistry or algebra, these academic subjects are crucial to giving students the best opportunities to pursue almost any qualification. Though I understand what my opponent has been trying to communicate in her further analysis of the 3 types of pupils one may find in a music lesson, She has failed to grasp my initial point. Because nothing much is accomplished in these obligatory music lessons, it makes no significant difference to the pupils whether or not they have the lesson. I would also briefly point out that the students who have a genuine passion for music will recognize the futility of the lessons and will receive private one to one tutoring and music lessons. Removing general music lessons will benefit everyone, the students who are truly fascinated and want to know more about the subject will be able to receive a better education and teachers can move them along at a faster pace. The students who do not want to be or do not understand music are not forced to endure through it, after all, for someone who does not enjoy the subject, having a music qualification is not important what so ever to future life plans, whereas other lessons for example English or maths are looked for in almost all career paths. In order to fully understand that which I hope to communicate, one only needs to consider how many children (below GCSE as these are specifically chosen by students) achieve any level of musical qualification based on what they have learnt in a class lesson. I dare say that all the music students that I have ever encountered, have only successfully achieved grades in music because they were receiving the lessons - not as something on curriculum - but as an optional extra curriculum activity.
Musical education should not be removed from public schools.

In response to my opponent's initial idea that music programs are not taken seriously, I would like to point out that in most high school and middle school environments, it is not required to take a course in either band or choir; these are generally electives, although I will acknowledge that in some cases the participation in said classes is mandatory. Because music courses are generally not obligatory, the students that partake in these classes are there by choice and enjoy them. Con also brought up the point that courses in musical education are "frustrating" and that none of the students are "particularly enjoying any aspect of the subject", as well as the teacher in the scenario doing "her best so conceal her cringe and shiver of disgust". These facets can also be applied to nearly any other subject. How many students do you know enjoy mathematics, literature, or science? Many pupils would agree that with accordance to the varying level of difficulty in each course, they may, and do, become frustrated with the lesson and find it hard to concentrate. For example, Con suggests that there are three types of students. 1) The first student could be referred to as a "class clown". This student, in any class that he may know nothing about, is the student that is distracting and disruptive to the lesson. 2) This is an average student in most cases. This pupil works diligently, but to no avail, as no matter how hard he tries, the lesson does not come easily to him and he cannot seem to become proficient in the subject. 3) The third student is the one with a natural inclination for learning. New lessons come easy to this pupil and he generally has no difficulty with finishing assignments and maintaining good grades. However, because of pupils (1) and (2), this student cannot progress as rapidly as he would be able to if it were just him, the teacher, and a few of the "star" students that match his learning capacity. So at the end of the class period, students walk away either utterly confused at what they've just learned and stressed about the assignments they don't know how to do, or they're annoyed with the slow pace at which the class is moving and their peers' inability to comprehend what they view as simple lessons. Con's idea of the "three students" in a music classroom can more often than not be applied in any classroom. However, if someone were to suggest cutting Algebra II or chemistry from the curriculum because of budget cuts, they would be looked at as if they had three heads. No one barely bats an eyelash when art programs are cut, which includes musical education. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.
Musical education should not be removed from public schools.

Musical education, also known by pupils as "music", "that doss lesson" and "time to piss about". No-one from the age of being able to bang a drum upwards has ever taken a music lesson seriously, it is a frustrating lesson simply because the number of pupils genuinely interested in the subject is relatively lower than that of the pupils who honestly could care less. There are three types of pupils who you will find in a music lesson, none of them are particularly enjoying any aspect of the subject; expect perhaps the moments at which they are allowed to bang the instruments, and create as load a ruckus as possible, while the teacher does her best to conceal her cringe and shiver of disgust. 1)The first pupil is the tone deaf I don't want to be hear kid. This pupil knows they have absolutely no musical talent whatsoever, and they will do their best to be as much of a nuisance as possible so that the whole class may also wallow with them in misery. 2)The second type of student is the one with focus but no skill. This pupil, despite a great work ethic and a willingness to work very hard simply does not posses the skill to masterfully play any instrument aside from perhaps the triangle. 3) The third and final pupil is very rare. This pupil has perhaps had extra music lessons from an early age, has a true talent and a passion for the subject. Because these people are rare in nature, they are often outnumbered when in music lessons and therefore, due to the ruckus being created by the pupils of parts (1) and (2) these pupils can not fully appreciate the lesson and they music and they too fail to glean any helpful knowledge from the lesson. At the end of an hour, the students will obediently file out of the classroom, over 80% most likely do not even know what on Earth they have just done in that whole lesson, and so, what then happens is that after an hour no-one has learnt anything new and the music lesson has been completely and utterly fruitless; A waste of time if ever there was one.
I think if you want kids/teens to be healthier you need to give them required nutrition classes.

I apologize if I miss read you about requiring gym classes. However I still stayed by my statement of not requiring health classes. Now lets say that a nutrition class is required then I guarantee that there would still be overweight kids because even if they take a class that doesn't mean that they would practice what they learned. It takes more than that; it's something that needs to be taught by the parents and carried through til they are out of the house. Parent's need to be a role-model to kids what it comes to nutrition. When grocery shopping the parent can ask the child what vegetable or fruit would go well with their meal for that night. That would give the child a choice on what they eat but it's a healthy choice!
I think if you want kids/teens to be healthier you need to give them required nutrition classes.

I wasn't saying that gym shouldn't be unrequired I stated that I think it's important. Just say that I rebel against gym, I still have to take it. Your opinion on the topic doesn't make sense. If you don't know how to eat healthy or how it's helping your body, then you'll be too overweight to "work out." I think working out is one of the most important things that you need as a kid. Yet, as I've grown older it's more important to know what I am eating, and why I am eating it. If 80% of kids would want to take the class, that is around the same percent that wants to take gym. Even the students that don't want to take gym, still learn things and gains the benefits. Same goes for the students that wouldn't want to take a nutritious classes, they would still benefit.
I think if you want kids/teens to be healthier you need to give them required nutrition classes.

I do agree that kids need to be educated however kids also need exercise. Exercise and diet is the only way to get healthy; I am a person that needs to be hands on. Gym wasn't my favorite in high school but it kept me in shape and healthy. I don't think nutrition classes need to be required because 80% kids will choose that class anyways. Requiring someone to do something will make them mad and rebel against the idea.
God Exists

Thanks for accepting. In this debate, I will be presenting 2 arguments that show that the existence of God is impossible, and a further two that argue it is highly unlikely that God exists. 1) The Logical Problem of Evil: (From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]): 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn't exist. This proposition shows that it is logically impossible for God to exist. 2) Paradox of an Omni-God [2]: God's "Omni" attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) raises a number of paradoxes that makes said attributes inconsistent with one another and therefore impossible for them to exist at once. 1. If God knows everything (due to his omniscience), he knows what it feels like to lie. If he knew what it feels like to lie, he must have done it, therefore undermining his omnibenevolence. 2. If God can do anything (due to his omnipotence), God can cause an unpredictable event. If he did so, he would not be able to know the outcome of the event, therefore undermining his omniscience. 3. If God can do anything, he can create an object he cannot move. If he were unable to move that object, however, he would not be able to do anything therefore undermining his omnipotence. In conclusion, these two arguments concisely explain why the existence of God is logically impossible. I will be presenting two more arguments next round that show God's existence is highly improbable in the unlikely event the opposition manages to circumvent my arguments. Thank you for reading. Sources: 1) https://plato.stanford.edu... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
This is false

This is a logical paradox that leads to vicious circularity. Let's step out of the box and look at our steps. We say it's false, and thus becomes true, making it false again, and thus becomes true, making it false again, and thus becomes true, making it false again, and thus becomes true, making it false again, and thus becomes true... We forget that logic is a tool to acquire knowledge, to get an answer to a question. It is not the truth itself. Now the logical procedure makes us go on and on moving in a circle. Let's put this circle in a box. Is this true? Is this false? It is a paradox. Can we get any value from this nonsense? Perhaps. I have two possible answers: Superposition of states (Just like in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) Significant values in divergent mathematical series. I would consider applying boolean algebra to the Grandi's series. http://en.wikipedia.org...
This is false

This could be true if it was false and I will beat you anyway. This can't be false if it is false. It isn't false, if it is true which means I have won. And the word "This" isn't false because you have spelt it right and before we go too far what is the object or thing that is "This". But if "This" I can get this to be true and false at the same time I will win this debate.
Micromangement is an effective leadership principle

"If you want something done right, do it yourself." - Napoleon BonaparteMicromanagement (as a general rule) is an effective managing style for government and business leaders. Con will argue the opposite.Micromanagement - a managing style whereby a manager/leader closely observes or controls the work of subordinates or employees. Effectiveness - The degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are solved. In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness is determined without reference to costs and, whereas efficiency means "doing the thing right," effectiveness means "doing the right thing." [1] The effectiveness of the new software was pleasing to the whole team as it was a joy to use by all. 1)http://www.businessdictionary.com... This challenge goes to sengejuri (let me know if you need any changes).Rounds:1)acceptance2)arguments3)counter arguments / rebuttals4)rebuttals / conclusions
The 2'nd amendment needs to be abolished, Here is why

You finally decided to take this 15 year old up on a debate. We do have SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, And US Marshalls. We do. The citizens who conceal carry in this country don't enforce the laws. They protect themselves. In 2016, Roughly 11 thousand people died to criminal use of guns. I don't have statistics from the same year, But nearly every national estimate states that anywhere from 500 thousand to 3 million lives are saved by concealed carriers in the US each year. Of course thorough background checks are necessary, But the outright ban of guns is foolish. You can make guns illegal, But crack is illegal and people still find a way around that. Cannabis is illegal, And people still find a way to get that. Prostitution is illegal, But people still do that. Moral of the story is, Regardless of whether guns are legal or not, People will get them. And with no citizens to defend against that, More innocent people will die at the hands of criminals with guns. You may say, "guns kill innocent people". Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming my pencil for failing my math test. It's all about the person carrying the gun.
The 2'nd amendment needs to be abolished, Here is why

There are way too many senseless killings in the USA because of guns. We do not live in the wild west anymore, There is no wild posse riding into town against one sheriff, There are no scalping Indians, We have modern police enforcement, SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, US Marshalls, WE DO NOT NEED GUNS. They just end up in the hands of criminals, Mentally ill who go on to mow down half a school, Or some lone wolf terrorist who decides to machine down a night club, Mall, Movie theater, Or the disgruntled fired employee who returns and goes postal at work. Get rid of the guns and the shooting will go down. I am going to present irrefutable evidence that shows that guns are bad and the second amendment needs to be abolished to stop the gun violence in the country of the gun
And this is why guns need to be illegal

You ask how we will make guns illegal? Simple, Get rid of the 300 year old second amendment. When that amendment and constitution were written was in the 1700. It's time to wake up and move into this century. We don't have wild posse riding into town, We don't have scalping Indians, We don't need to kill our food, Billy The Kid and Jessie James aren't waiting for duels on the main dirt street in town. Times have changed, People have changed, Societies have changed, Lets move into this century instead of hanging on to a 300 year old law. The 2'md amendment can be removed, Laws are changed and amended. Hell marijuana is legal ALL across Canada today! , It was illegal and people went to jail for it, But now they can smoke it right in front of a cop or grow their own. If we can change that, We can change gun laws. Get rid of the 2nd amendment, Then provide a buy back program for guns, Give a 2 year grace period for gun ownership, Then make it illegal to own one. First offence 5 years in jail. The only exception would be law enforcement officers. Canada has no guns, The only gun violence in Canada is drug dealers killing each other with guns smuggled from the USA. But no one else can have a hand gun or machine gun. I don't hear any Canadian complaining that they need a gun for protection, Because there is no gun culture in Canada, And many other countries are the same when it comes to guns. Hell in England the police don't even have guns, Just whistles. The whole gun culture is an NRA fueled billion dollar industry, The NRA made more money last year that all of Hollywood entertainment. Americans love their guns more than watching movies! What does that say about a society. That you would rather carry a gun and have your kid take it to school and kill kids because he is being bullied, Rather than go toa movie theater with your kid. Pretty sad. Thank God I don't live in America, Home of the gun nut culture. Your Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Aurora movie theater, Orlando night club, Las Vegas (58 dead) will never stop, Because the entire American society is brainwashed into believing that you need a gun, Because the "Tyrannical Government" is coming after you, Or a perp is just waiting to invade your house, And so you have to live in constant fear and carry a gun. When in reality it's more likely your kid gets hold of the gun and shoots himself or his friends or doesn't take his meds and goes and shoots up a school, Or you get fired from the post office and go home and get a gun and come back to shoot all the employees. Guns kill and they should be illegal. Lets stop this stupid gun paranoid mentality #StopgunsMETOO #Gunviolencevictimslivesmatter #NRA=666 #Dontbeparanoid
And this is why guns need to be illegal

You're right on the points that guns should be not be a right to everyone and that home invasions, Burglaries, Or attempted murders are rare. However, It may be better to be safe than sorry. Yes, Many times, Guns get into the wrong hands, And that is why there is gun control to minimize the number of gun homicides and shooting accidents. Problem is, How are we going to make guns illegal if most of the people with guns wouldn't cooperate? In addition, Although a gun ban certainly would discourage criminals to commit a crime with a gun, Some criminals that are extremely passionate for their goal to kill someone may try to steal or obtain one illegally. The situation gets complicated their, Since although less criminals have guns, Virtually no law abiding citizens would have them to defend themselves.
And this is why guns need to be illegal

I am so tired of hearing from these red neck, Military, Waco Texas, NRA loving gun nuts who believe in some ancient parchment the Constitution and believe they need guns, It's sad stories like this that always amaze me why people would still want to have a gun. In a civilized society we have, Why would you feel the need to own a gun, Unless you are a meth dealing trailer park trash, A ghetto gangster or just a complete paranoid person who thinks the tyrannical government is going to break down their door and invade their house without a warrant, Or they believe that there will be a home invasion every night at your house. It's stories like this that make me wonder, Are people really that stupid that they feel they need a gun? MARION, Ind. -- Authorities say a 3-year-old boy accidentally shot and wounded his 2-year-old brother at their home in northeastern Indiana. The shooting happened Monday near the Grant County community of Marion, About 60 miles northeast of Indianapolis. State police and the county sheriff's office responded and found that the younger brother had been shot in the shoulder and the bullet was lodged in a wall. The wounded boy was taken to a hospital for treatment.
Albert Einstein wasnt atheist.

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it"[1] "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension"[2] I think these two quotes indicate that when Einstein spoke of "god", his feelings were far more in line with Voltier's deism, than to any supernatural monotheist creator god. From the deist position even referring to "god/s" is somewhat of a misnomer, often used simply for lack of a better term rather than to align themselves with any theological conception of god. Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 39. Rowe, David and Robert Schulmann (2007). Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Pres