BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students Should not be forced into public speaking

Students are expected to learn and improve in many fields. Tests stress some people out and cause anxiety. Should they be optional? Homework stresses some out and causes anxiety. Should that be optional? No. I know many who improved at public speaking purely because they had to do it in school. School offers a supportive environment to practice skills you are bad at. Students may skip school because there is a test, Or because they didn't do a project assigned for homework. Their grades may go down due to that as well. Why is public speaking any different? School is a mandatory activity, Not a choice that some are making. Students shouldn't be given the choice to miss out on whatever parts of their education they just don't like. I am writing this as a high school student myself.
Students Should not be forced into public speaking

Students already have a lot of stress in their lives and adding more by giving them a speech to present is cruel especially for those who have glossophobia or anxiety. So if students feel stressed and get anxiety speaking publicly, Why are you forcing them to. Also, Everyone is has their strengths and their weaknesses, And for some people public speaking is their weekness. Why would you force someone to do something that makes them upset. Students may also feel so scared of going to school and anticipating the moment where their teacher assigns them a presentation or speech that they skip school entirely, Even just for one 2-3 min presentation. Which can effect their grades a lot. In conclusion I think that forcing students into public speaking is a terrible way to teach kids in school.
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

Proof of Photo shop of the official photos of earth. 1. The blue marble https://www.google.com... I'm this first photo, north America has over doubled in size in just 30 years, The 1978 photo leaves no room for all of south America, the 2012 photo shows no room for Canada and Alaska where's the north pole? Where are the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth?https://i.ytimg.com... The word "sex" wrote in cloud formations? Matt Borland ex nasa employee was hired to produce such images and more. https://youtu.be... Here is a collection of them side by side to compare, none of them are really similar, and the land masses have either changed size or location over time. https://ronmamita.files.wordpress.com... https://youtu.be... Your own video, if you examine closely, uses a fisheye lens! Pause the video at 1:38. Look! That's because the camera pointed well below the horizon, when its pointed directly at the horizon, the plane levels out, and when above this point, well you get the point.I hope. As for debunking the Bradford experiment, I'm not an expert on light curvature, but I think that light bends upwards. http://www.wildheretic.com... Lol @ the bucket experiment, when you spin said bucket, is the bucket's bottom towards the center of the spin? That's the only comparison you can make with earth... If the bottom of the bucket were on the outside of the spin, centrifugal force pushes the water outwards til it reaches a barrier in this case the bottom of the bucket, or gravity for that matter. Basic physics, like you said! My video of a balloon launch is not nearly as laughable as your fisheye launch as I mentioned earlier, but to pacify, I searched YouTube for a few more high altitude launches,with no fishy cams, enjoy! As for oil in Antarctica, they can never know for sure because the treaty prevents any mining but you offer a source saying no oil, I offer one that says plenty. http://www.bbc.com... As far as planes and the earth's motion, when a plane leaves the surface of the earth, it's flight is not affected by the spin, it should be free of said spin, as in if you were in the back of a truck and jumped up high, you would come out, in your reference of a train, you never actually leave the surface of the moving object so you can't account for it. https://youtu.be... As for the sun, it's funny you should mention art, because my current profile pic is an example of using the suns rays to finding its position relative to the clouds, and the earth, if the sun were 93Brazilian miles away, those rays would all be running in the same direction. That's art study 101. First lessons free. As for the conspiracy part, I relate to you on this, and really, all that is needed is for nasa associates(Google operation paperclip) and world governments to keep it a secret, if you teach a globe from day one, no one bothers questioning it, simple as the abcs. Look at how much money is poured into nasa every year, for 60 years, that's enough money to bribe anyone to say anything. "We don't have time for a meeting with the flat earth society" -Obama
TV Ratings should be Federally Standardized and Legally Enforced.

Sorry! This is my first debate, and I was still editing. I didn't think anyone would accept that fast! I was going to add this:ATTENTION! If you accept this debate, it means you want the government to federally stadardize and legally inforce TV ratings. Read the topic title carefully!Because, you see, I am negative, which means I do NOT want the government to do this! I agree with you totally, and that was one of my main points, as well!It's a stupid way to word it, but it is the debate I am doing in school right now, so I just wanted to get some practice with everything exactly the same. Sorry for the confusion!
TV Ratings should be Federally Standardized and Legally Enforced.

If you were to legally enforce television ratings, the parent would have no power over what their child can and cannot watch. This would not only mean that they could not show their child(ren) shows that they (but not the federal government) believed to be appropriate for their age, but it would also become frowned upon to disallow your child to veiw programs that you see as inapporopriate. The government should not be allowed to say what people are and are not allowed to see. This type of standardization as you see as correct is akin to the recent Egyptian uprising over closed internet policies.
TV Ratings should be Federally Standardized and Legally Enforced.

This is how the order of speeches will go. Since the opponent is affirmative, he/she will have the first actual speech. MY SPEECHES(Negative) Round 1: Rules. Round 2: Opening argument. Round 3: Cross examination of opponent's round 2. Round 4: Rebuttals. OPPONENT'S SPEECHES(Affirmative) Round 1: Opening argument. Round 2: Cross examination of opponent's round 2. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: You will post nothing here.
Athletic programs are favored above academic ones, but should not be.

This is my first debate on this site, and I'm glad to try it out! Anyway, to the argument. The fact is, I've been noticing trends throughout areas, especially in my school district, where people and the school administration tend to give more funds for the athletic department, rather then all the academic programs that exist in the school. While some programs are well funded, it seems that comparing say a football team to a debate team, the football team will always come out ahead, regardless on how well they do. In my school for example, the football team doesn't do so well. However, our speech and debate team does well at nationals, and doesn't seem to get as much obvious support as say the football team does. Is this fair? I don't think so. All programs are programs, and to give to one that's doing worse off more funds then one that's doing better, doesn't make any sense. It just shows that many people decide that sports are more important, which I believe is not true. Again, not sure if I did this right...>.<
Athletic programs are favored above academic ones, but should not be.

Your idea makes no sense whatsoever. It has no tie. Your latest argument talks about how people should do sports. However, people get the same joy in studying academics. However, that it not the topic at hand. The topic is the funding of sports verses academics. Because you have inadequately responded to the topic, I can't really say anything.. I'm going basically to finish and say it was..interestng debating you. However, I believe it's unfair to give more funding to programs that bring joy to different people.
Drivers convicted of a DUI should have their license suspend.

This round shall be weighted using a cost-benefit analysis. My opponent has not stated significant effects of driver license suspensions. They also state that, quote: "there would be other penalties such as more jail time and possible other penalties". In my first round speech, I have stated that, quote: "a new penalty system shall be created in which the new penalty requires a heavier punishment that will have a greater impact on the charged criminal". It is displayed that my opponent has agreed to my argument and therefore their second speech argument flows in con's favor. Looking back at the weighting that should be used in this round, I have shown that the costs outweigh the benefits. Essentially in a Pro world, suspensions would still be in place without any significant effects on the goal of public safety. Whereas in a Con world, a new system that would work better will be implemented that will end in greater safety for the public.
Drivers convicted of a DUI should have their license suspend.

Definitions (Merriam-Webster) : to debar temporarily especially from a privilege, office, or function Keep in mind for this topic the definition of suspend, it is not a permanent takeaway, meaning that these drivers will eventually gain their licenses back. Though the suspensions have proven somewhat effective, clearly the rate of death caused by DUI drivers is still a rather significant amount. Hence we are debating this topic. The current system in which licenses are just suspended is not enough to prevent a majority of the lives taken due to these drunk drivers. You simply cannot just take their license away, wait for the period of time required by law, then return it and expect them to not repeat their actions. Change takes time and clearly, the time given does not have a large impact on the goal which is; public safety. Now, I am not stating that there shall be no penalty for DUI drivers, but that the current system does not work. If public safety is the goal, a new penalty system shall be created in which the new penalty requires a heavier punishment that will have a greater impact on the charged criminal. Also, just because one's license is taken away, that does not mean they are completely suspended from taking the wheel. As long as someone has access to a car they can drive it whenever they want, yes they will not be in possession of a license, but as long as they appear to be following the rules on the road cops will not catch them.
Drivers convicted of a DUI should have their license suspend.

I believe that a driver who is convicted of a DUI should have their license suspend because Drives with DUIS have taken lives. Not all of them have but a lot of crashes are caused by drivers driving under the influence. Imaging that you are a parent of a 16 year old who has their license and they end up in a car crash because another driver was under the influence. What would you want to happen? Mostly you would want justice to be served, the driver to spend some time in jail and maybe even permanently loose their license all to protect your child among their friends and all of the other drivers. Suspending license after a DUI could save lives.
Socialism Can Work 2nd Edition

If I understand your points correctly, I believe that you think a socialist society would crumble due to human greed and a lack of motivation to work. You are wrong. People are too greedy - this is a common objection to socialism, and suggests that, in socialism, some people would take more than their share of goods. Images are conjured up of people walking out of supermarkets carrying stockpiles of food"after all, isn't that what everyone would do if all goods were freely available? It may be what people would do in today's capitalist society, where what we need appears to be scarce because it is rationed by the payment of the wage. But if food were given away free in socialism, there would be no need to take more than you need. Because food will have been produced to satisfy society's needs, not for profit, it will be available on that basis. The current world food supply (let alone the potential supply) is enough to feed the global population (see How we could feed the world). Indeed, there is the potential to meet the broader range of human needs, in an environmentally sustainable way, if socialism were established. Once the insecurity of our current society is left behind, it would simply become pointless to take more than you needed. Besides, we argue that people are not greedy enough! If people were as "greedy" as people claim, why do they give away all their wealth and power to the capitalist class in the first place? In response to the next point, people would have no incentive to work, let's first understand why people work in a capitalist society. Here are a few main reasons: 1. They legitimately enjoy their job, almost as one would enjoy their hobby. They like the satisfaction of doing something that they love, honing their skills at it, and like to manage their own expertise in whatever way they see fit. This is called Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. 2. They feel a societal need to work. Kids are often urged by their parents to work in order to get some structure in their lives, get some money for themselves, and make themselves useful. Not working makes one look lazy and they don't want to look bad. 3. They need to work, or they starve. This is what most people under capitalism live with. Most people (I'm speaking globally right now, we can talk specifically in the US if you want) must work a job in order to buy their food for the week, pay for water, and pay for shelter. In this scenario, you are not achieving any mastery of purpose, you are simply using your job as a means to an end, and not an end itself. Under socialism, in essence (I'm really trying not to make this post long), the motivation to work would be a combination of 1, and maybe a little bit of 2. Never 3. Someone who has to work in order to live is neither truly working to their full potential, nor are they truly living. It is a basic trait of the human experience that if you are insecure about your food sources, your shelter, and your basic necessities, that it is almost impossible to reach one's full productive and creative abilities.
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

Hi there,I just noticed your current ongoing debate about "Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel".I was struck by two things. Firstly how civil it was considering the topic which is always a joy when it so often turns nasty and secondly how, despite the fact that I agree his point of view IRL, I don't think OsamatheCityzen put his points as well as he could have done and I'd like a chance to be able to put forward my views on this contentious topic in the open and hospitable manner I saw in the last thread.For that reason I've issued this closed challenge.Would you like to have a repeat of it with me?
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

First of all, I will reply your arguments. Israel absolutely not kill civilians indiscriminately. The procedures of the Israel Defence Forces says that it is absolutely prohibited to attack a target if it endangers innocents. [1] The truth is that the IDF warns civilians, and it's the only army in the entire world to do so. (Does the US army warns innocent citizens in Iraq and Syria before attacking ISIS? I don't think so.) [2] [3] [4] Israel does hold prisoners without trial, yes. Terrorists. In any other country they were executed, but in Israel it's different. It is legal to kill someone only if he is responsible for many terror attacks (like Osama Bin-Laden or Mohammad Deif). If a soldier kills a Palestinian, even if the Palestinian tried to murder him and the soldier defended himself, he broke the law and will be punished. [5] Israel lets the civilians in Judea and Samaria live as they want. Palestinians are allowed to work in Israeli Businesses, and even have their own government: the Palestinian Authority. Israel does block the Palestinian areas in Judea and Samaria lately, but only as a temporary solution until the wave of terror will pass. [6] Israel does not use human shield. It is forbidden, illegal and most important, unethical (and the IDF maintains its morality). Images like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com..., are fakes. The captions says "police", but Israel's police cars doesn't look like that. But you know who does use human shields? The Hamas. [7] [8] Many attacks were aborted because of people who refused to leave, but not every time death could be prevented if the Hamas doesn't allow people to evacuate. As our prime minister said: "If the Arabs will lay down their arms, there will be no war. If Israel will lay down their arms, there will be no Israel." It is also correct for here. Israel transfers food, water, electricity and money to Gaza, but all of it is taken by the Hamas and used for terror. With the money used to build the terror tunnels they could've built hospitals, schools and buildings. [9] [10] At the end of the day, all I want to say is that even if Israel has committed war crimes (and Israel has), boycotting will not be helpful enough. If you want to stop the killing, the best thing to do is to stop the Hamas. One last thing: Most of the readers might've heard and read many anti-Israeli opinions, most of them are clearly biased. I'm not saying my sources are more objective, but if you'll hear both sides, it will probably be easier to reach the truth. So please, visit this website, that explains everything from our point-of-view: http://israeliside.com... sources: 1. 2. http://www.ynetnews.com... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.nytimes.com... 5. http://www.jpost.com... 6. http://www.haaretz.com... 7. http://www.algemeiner.com...# 8. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 9. http://www.wzo.org.il... 10. http://www.timesofisrael.com...
Walls are great

Bridges are nessesary for people to navigate gaps, while walls just create borders. They do not initiate trade, they do not create value, instead, they discourage free trade. If bridges were removed from the world, trade would nessesarily take a huge beating, while if we removed walls, you would see much less of an impact on the world's economy, because no one depends on walls. People depend on bridges for transportation of goods and people. You asked me for a bridge that would be considered an ancient wonder. This brings up my point exaclty: walls are outdated, while bridges are modern and new. Just take a look at the Golden Gate Bridge. Modern, new, and a wonder of engineering. . http://www.brighthubengineering.com...Walls do not last forever, as we have seen evidence that people want to tear some of them down (the Berlin Wall). You have not responded or rebutted my argument on the Berlin Wall, so it stands in contradiction to your argument. In conclusion, bridges are better than walls because they bridge gaps rather than create them, are nessesary in trade and transportation, and are more modern, new, and better engineered than outdated and obsolete walls.
Walls are great

Can you name anyou bridge that is a wonder of the world though? The great Wall of China is. Not only do bridges cause traffic, they KILL. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Many bridges are quite weak and therefore hazardous. http://science.howstuffworks.com... https://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com... http://www.wonderslist.com... And the list goes on infinitely. Walls offer protection but bridges are just a bomb target that can chaos when they cut off suppliers. And bridge are boring, you can put all sorts of designs on walls, and make them in many beautiful styles. Walls last forever too, do archaeologists find loads of bridges fully intact, no they find walls cos walls are awesome. Plus , you can play ball against a wall and put a basketball hoop on it and stuff, can't do that with a bridge, you know what a bridge does , suicide, walls are your friends and bridges just wanna kill you. Do you prefer friends or murderers? And walls are needed to build bridges. Yiu can build walls without bridges but you canto build bridges without walls, you can build houses and buildings etc without bridges but not walls. Walls are multifunctional and useful and bridges are just useless essentially.
Walls are great

Bridges are not weak and flimsy. As an example, the Harbour Bridge is incredibly rigid, due to its geometrical shape and work of tension (1). A large amount of cars and trucks drive across this bridge every day, something that one cannot say about walls. After all, all walls do is keep people out. They do not encourage people to come over to do business, to work, to create value, etc. You stated that walls are so good you never want to get rid of it. This, too, if false. The Berlin Wall is just one example of a wall that we decided we wanted to get rid of, because it was doing harm rather than helping the surrounding community. Sources: (1) http://whatmakesabridgestrong.weebly.com...
Walls are great

Well, walls are quite bulky. Imagine if you feel like you want to move it a little to the left or the right, or up and down. But you can't, because it's a wall. You have to live with it forever, or at least until a barbarian tribe break it down.Bridges are cool because you can walk on them, and it's a place where you couldn't normaly walk (i.e. it spans a river, canyon). Also, bridges are better than walls because they are easier and cheaper to make. They are economicaly feasable, while big, bulky walls are not.