BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School uniforms should be banned

Words from an study of Arizona State University: "Public School Uniforms: Effect on Perceptions of Gang Presence, School Climate, and Student Self-Perception," I am in favour in this debate. I think school uniforms should be ban. Children' freedom is restricted with school uniforms. Students should be able to wear the clothes that they want to express their style. Why not to create a dress code instated of having uniforms? Like this, students will look well and can wear what they want. There are many students that infringe the uniform code because they don't feel comfortable with the clothes of it, but in my personal opinion it would be easier to follow a dress code with clothes chosen by students, because it's what they like and since they feel comfortable with their clothes, they will make a little effort to look more pretty following the school dress codes. How many replies does schools get because they have school uniforms? A lot. Sometimes boys look under the girls' skirt. Many people reply school uniforms are uncomfortable or ugly. So to stop get g this replies, school should abolish uniforms. It would not be that easy for your parents to find you if you are wearing the same clothes that everyone is wearing. I think that since people are young, they have to learn that everyone is different and this is limited with school uniforms, because everyone wears the same thing. Students can express their creativity and individuality choosing the clothes that they are going to wear and this can make them know that they have some likes that are different from other people. If schools have uniforms, that will be the only option for kids to wear and, what happens if a kid don't find his/her size? It would be difficult for parents, they will have to search someone that make the uniform or buy an smaller or bigger size for the kid, but without uniforms, kids will have a lot of options to wear and that problem will go out. Uniforms can decrease self-esteem. Instated of increasing it, many students can dislike the way they look with uniforms because their image is not the best, it is just limited If you think that wearing school uniforms reduce bullying, you are totally wrong. A 1999 study conducted by experts from Texas Southern University showed that bullying incidents increased 12%, after the implementation of mandatory uniform wearing in schools. Uniforms are boring. The way in which I understand this point is thinking that seeing the same clothes over and over again can make people to get tired of doing it. Also because of the colours: uniforms just have between 2 and 5 colours! This will make also people being tired of seeing the same colours lot of times. I think schools uniforms should be banned for schools to stop receiving reapplies, for student's freedom, and for all the reasons mentioned above. Dress codes instead will work. Good luck opponent!
School uniforms should be banned

I will take the pro side. Good wishes to my opponent, I have to say that I have not a very good experience in debates and I am just a little girl, but I want to do more debates to practice and hold my opinion even if someone try to convince me to take the other side. Debate structure: 1st round: Only accepting 2nd and 3rd round: Argumentative text 4th round: I will ask questions to my opponent and he/she will answer them
MUHAHAHA You will lose

To whomever it may concern, You claimed: "You will lose because I am Psyhcic." Even if you WERE psychic, you didn't say you foresaw that I would lose. You merely claimed that you were psychic, which would not help you win in any way. I even still don't know who will win, it is in the voice of the people. Also you claimed: "I know that you go to H_____d _E_____K_?" I have no idea what H_____d_E_____K_ is. If you mean the school that I attend, I am in your class. You do not get straight A's which you would if you were psychic because you would know what to study ahead of time and know all the answers. You also don't know that I would write this because you are not psychic. If you were, you'd be a lot smarter and not challenge me.Also, I haven't lost YET!!!
MUHAHAHA You will lose

Dear MR.Crazypenguin, Thank you for challenging me to this debate. First I will rebut (or try) your arguement. You said: "MUHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH YOU WILL LOSE" I cannot predict who will win and who will lose, but I can try to present my arguement in a way that might encourage others to vote for me. I can, right now, decide to sabotage this debate by writing a crazy speech, resulting in either my win or loss, or I can write a well-rounded speech, that again might result in either. I have NO WAY of knowing you will win this debate, especially because it is the first round :P Also, you said: "MUAFHADSFLHASDFKJASDFJKASDFJKASDFJKASDLJFASDKJFALDSKFLAJSDFAJLKDSF" I believe that you have either made up your own language, or you wrote random things that I cannot interpret. Please make your arguement clearer next time so that I have some challenge. Thanks. For the topic of this debate, you said that I would lose. I can lose. Then again, I may win. This debate is totally on the side of the voters, so I hope they realize who is the better debater. Thank you for your time, and I agree, "crazy doesn't even begin to cover it."
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke Woodrow Wilson was a highly competent and sucessful President, leading us through a highly stressful time in our history. He kept us out of a European war until it began to directly effect our citizens, most modern President invade to help the 1% not the welfare of the common people. He won two terms and helped build us up to the most successful economic place that we ever were in. He mobilized our nation and made us into a superpower, the first world superpower outside of Europe. He continued to fight for America even after suffering a devasting stroke. Personal Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.brainyquote.com...
Self-help books are useless and waste your money

I will follow Google's more accurate definition on self help books: SELF HELP BOOKS: Self-help books are written with the stated intention to instruct any readers on a number of personal problems. Pro also did not submit a structure with how this debate will run, so I'll therefore go straight into my arguments: 1. Self-help books are made to guide people in their life with issues that the majority of people who fail to deal with it themselves. It is for this reason the self-help books are being made and many people would whip out their cash to have those books at home. Some people obviously think it is worth buying because they think it will help them in their life. I, for example have bought a self-help book myself and definitely think it was worth my money. The book "The 6 most important Decisions you'll ever make" by Sean Covey deals with 6 issues that year 7-12 students (teenagers in general) are almost certainly going to face. To give a general overview, the 6 topics are: 1. School 2. Friends 3. Parents 4. Dating and Sex 5. Addictions 6. Self-worth These 6 topics may look very basic and look simple to deal with, but not for the average high schooler obviously! Without that book, my life would be at a lot worse state than it is now. I'd suggest you read this book to give you an idea on why self-help books are not useless and ARE worth your money. 2. The second issue you mentioned is that it "wastes your money". This is actually quite an easy issue to overcome as you should be able to access some libraries to help you have a basic overview to give you an idea of what the book is like and what it covers. You can also borrow the book and read it at home and return it once you've done. Whether it has been useful or not, you have not wasted your money. This point on wasting your money is an easy issue to overcome. CONCLUSION Self-help books are useful because they have tips and advices on things that the majority of people do not know or are aware of. It is also not a waste of money because you can simply borrow it from the library if you are not sure about buying it from the store.
Single-gendered classrooms

C1. Single-sex institutions are bad for the emotional health of males.Men always say that they do not understand women, perhaps because they were sent to single sex schools. Research has proved that boys who went to single sex schools as opposed to mixed schools are more likely to get divorced and suffer from depression in their 40. This is proof that we should school our children in mixed schools in order to give them the best bill of emotional health. Dr. Diana Leonard, who presented the findings, concluded that ‘Boys learn better when they are with girls and they actually learn to get on better’.C2. Single-sex schools are manifestations of patriarchal societiesSingle-sex schools are a throwback to the patriarchal society of the past; in many historical cultures, only men were allowed an education of any sort. To perpetuate this is to remind women of their past subservience and to continue to hold them from full social inclusion. In India, where the colonial yoke of British rule remains, the national average for the difference in male-female literacy is 16.7%, with some districts as high as 28%. Single-sex schools discourage female education and make it increasingly difficult for parents to find room for girls in the limited co-educational schools. A push for single-sex education therefore is ‘predicated on outdated, moronic, and destructive gender stereotypes’. C3. Children need to be exposed to the opposite sex in preparation for later lifeThe formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the company of the other gender, in order that they may learn each other’s’ behaviour and be better prepared for adult life. The number of subjects benefiting from single-sex discussion is so small that this could easily be organised within a co-educational system. Furthermore, even if girls naturally perform better in an environment without boys, they need to learn how to perform just as well with boys. Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert, declared in a 2006 report that ‘distraction by boys was a myth’ and that ‘half a century of research has not shown any dramatic or consistent advantages for single-sex education for boys or girls’.sourcesGarner, R. ‘Why single-sex schools are bad for your health’. The Independent, 1 December 2009. Asthana, A. ‘Single-sex schools ‘no benefit to girls’’. The Guardian, 25 June 2006.
Single-gendered classrooms

Single gender classrooms would be taking Woman's Rights and throwing it out the window, if you were to take a group of children and tell them that the boys will be in one classroom, and the girls will be in the other then, you would have girls and boys feeling insecure and that the other side is superior to them making them feel even more insecure. Genders should be taken together so that, boys will learn to get along with girls and girls will get along with boys.
Monotheism Reduces to Monism.

Here is what the debate has boiled down to: How much of a role should our every-day definitions of a word influence how it can be limited for a specific purpose Does an experience entail the actual action required to gain the experience in the first place? I have no choice but to concur with my opponent's syllogism except for the fallacious definitions he is using in order to define his two most important premises. We must decide the role of a regularly accepted definitions in a syllogism. For a premise to make sense, it has to be TRUE, or valid in order for it to be used validly in a syllogism. What determines how true something is? The concept of truth is founded first and foremost on the grounds that the truth has to be accepted b the majority of people. My opponent has based his whole syllogism on the concept of two or three definitions that, I think we both agree, are outside the limits of what common day usage of the two words. While I'm not concerned with his own interpretations of "experience", "self", or "knowledge", but rather with the general interpretations of these said words. If the syllogism is valid in his mind, then so much the better; however, for a syllogism to be generally valid, we need premises that are true! With this said, I object to my opponent using subjective definitions that ARE not supplied by objective dictionaries in order to prove my point. Not only has my opponent cherry-picked his definitions, he has committed an error in supposing that "experience" encompasses everything in life. The word "experience" (as defined by m-w.com) demands the existence of preconditions in order for it to be gained. I cannot gain experience of something by doing nothing, can I? The answer is obviously no. Thus, experience, requires AN ACTION OF SOME SORT in order for it to be gained, and since god is not performing this action, we're not all part of hi Although I agree with my opponent's syllogism if the two or three definitions were not so broadly defined, I believe that the definitions have OVERLY constrained the possible permutations of "experience" and "self" that are available.
Naruto is overrated

It seems like my opponent has forfeited this round. While the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that Naruto is, in fact, overrated, I will make a few points. 1. The Manga The manga is one of the best-selling mangas in the world. As of February 2012, it had sold over 126.5 million copies. This is, as it would seem, a huge number. In 2006, the Naruto manga alone accounted for almost 10% of all manga sales (1). Overrated is defined by Dictionary.com as rating or appraising too highly, or overestimating (2). However, as its sales are so incredibly high, and it controls such a high portion of the market, its value is certainly not overestimated. 2. The Anime Freely streamed episodes of Naruto: Shippuden have an average of 160,000 viewers a week. It is also one of the most watched series in Japan (3). As it has one of the largest fan bases of any anime/manga, it is not overrated. Overrated is defined by Dictionary.com as rating or appraising too highly, or overestimating (2). However, because of Naruto's high sales, large market share, and large fan base, its value is not overrated. I would also like to urge my opponent, Oneil_Ferrer to respond this time. Debates are really more fun when opposing views are presented. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... The manga section 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... The anime section
Citizens of the state should have a right to vote on how tax revenue is allocated in a budget.

Citizens of the state have their input on how a budget is allocated,and it is with their vote for representatives and senators and who they vote for in the presidential election. There is a system of checks and balances already in place that takes place among elected officials and appointed officials. And American's have a say in this process through elections. By asking citizens to vote on a budget you open up a pandora's box moving this country towards textbook democracy where every issue is voted on by the population. This country drafted a republic because it was too difficult to maintain a democracy in such a large and diverse country. Benjamin Franklin once said, "A republic, if you can keep it." It is the job of the country to hold our elected officials responsible for what they do.
Citizens of the state should have a right to vote on how tax revenue is allocated in a budget.

Citizens of the state should have a right to vote on how tax revenue is allocated in a budget. The trigger word "Should" implies that there's a practical and moral imperative behind this. The practical imperative is that this very system is possible and can bring about more cohesion by virtue of the fact that people will not be dissatisfied with how their government allocates revenue when they themselves have an opportunity to have input. Secondly, the moral force behind this relates to the fact that the social contract is not a justification for a government to use tax revenue and allocate it how they want. There's a huge percentage of people who do not want their taxes funding education for the poor, for example as Ontario, Canada recently tried to propose free education for those earning less than $50,000, funded by higher taxes. This proposal was offered without any input from the public or consent. It's immoral to take money away from people trying to fund their own offspring's education in order to finance some other child's education, without consent. Those were just two imperatives behind the trigger word. I'll propose two arguments. Firstly, the essence of a state is such that it's predicated on the legitimacy of its people. By virtue of the fact that you have people entrusting the government with their funds and allowing their funds to be used, a state must use them according to the will of their citizens and not against them. This is predicated on two reasons. Firstly, these very people are the ones who are contributing to economic growth and are working within the economy to earn, so the revenue collected from their effort should not be used to against their whims, one such example is the billions wasted on the Iraq war. Secondly, this links to the first point, when you use funds in a manner that is frowned upon within your state, you can trigger negative reactions from citizens. This can lead to legitimacy of the government being lost and possible negative grievances arising from a state. This very force is one that can drive radicalization if its not addressed. One good example is the dictatorship within Arab states that led to the Arab spring, which further led to radicalization from unexpressed grievances. Secondly, voting on economic matters also acts as a check and balance on the power that the government officials have and prevents them from having too much control over the state and affairs. Since the world strives for a more democratic atmosphere, democracy is strengthened by the fact that there's a balance of power. Without this, power becomes vested into a certain number of individuals which can shift a democracy into a oligarchy.
Henry VIII was a bad person

At this point I would like to note that my opponent has agreed with all of my points, the only matter of contention now is that it was acceptable back in those days for the monarchy to kill people, thus Henry VIII was not a bad person.I believe Con is sorely mistaken in this regard. We judge people by our current standards in society. For example, you wouldn't hear someone saying that the Salem Witch trials, where they burnt supposed 'witches' as a good thing, but back then, the people would've thought it was completely justified. We must judge them based on what our stands of good and evil are as of now. There's no use hypothesising whether something was acceptable or not back in those days, what matters is whether they are good or bad given our upbringing and education. Hitler killed a lot of people, but so did a lot of Nazis, does that make them any less of a monster? No, no it doesn't. Murder was murder, and it hasn't been condoned for over a millenia before King Henry VIII was ever conceived. Furthermore, his murder was not even justified, as you saw in my example, he killed people for the smallest of reasons - he had a superiority complex. This is clearly the behaviour of a bad person in any society and has been for many centuries.Since Con has accepted every other argument of mine I have nothing else to add.
Henry VIII was a bad person

Firstly, let me apologise for the mistakes which I made. I realise that it will cost me many points, if not the whole debate. However, I plan to continue, I might as well.You mentioned killing people as a bad thing that Henry VIII did, and I agree with you that killing people is a very horrible thing to do. However, Henry VIII did not reign during our time, the 21st century. Instead, he reigned during the 1500's. In those days, killing people was a lot less rare for the monarchy. Rulers before Henry VIII killed people, so why couldn't Henry? Of course, this is not acceptable now, but in those days, it was more common and acceptable for the monarchy to kill people.I now await my opponents next argument, and again apologise for the mistakes which I made in round 2.
Henry VIII was a bad person

I understand and agree that Henry VIII did bad things in his reign, however, I feel that many people forget the good things that he did. One of the good things that he did was set up the English navy, which protected, and continues to protect every person inside the UK. Without the English navy, England would probably have been invaded along time ago, and would not be a separate country right now. There is nothing bad about this. Also, Henry authorised the translation of the Christian bible into English. If he hadn't have done this, every single English-speaking Christian would have to learn another language in order to read the bible. If this was the case right now, then chances are that many people would be put off from turning Christian, just because of the fact that they would have to learn another language in order to read the holy book. I'm sure you will be able to come up with bad points to this, however, I feel that all of them would be out ruled by this fact. Henry also founded the Church of England, now one of the largest denominations in the Christian religion. Yes, of course this had bad side effects, but it also has good ones which have lasted further than the bad ones. For example, a lot of people who are Christian, don't agree with catholic ways. People may want to spread God's word by becoming part of the church, however, I'm sure most people will be put off by the fact that they would not be able to marry, or have children. In the Church of England, they are free to do so, and also spread God's word at the same time. Good luck with this debate simpleguy, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
Is There A Biblical Prohibition Against Poligamy

2 Samuel 12:8 "I gave you your master's wives, the daughters of Israel and the daughters of Judah..." There will no doubt be many who will argue that polygamy is a sin however you just read the fact that the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob gave polygamy to David. David was a man after God's own heart. People who would argue that God made Adam and Eve are not wrong but we must remember, this was a perfect union. When sin entered into the picture so did polygamy. No is was not God's perfect plan for mankind but neither was sin. You just heard the God of the universe state He gave David polygamy, please whomever is willing to debate against this fact, please do!
Is There A Biblical Prohibition Against Poligamy

Hi, I am happy to debate this and for the record am glad you brought up the Bible passage from Cor. If one looks at the Greek you will see there is NO "Own" in "Own Wife". The only time 'Own' is ever used is in 1 Tim when the Bible commands Bishops to have only 'One wife' however, the word used in this instance is "Mia" meaning the first. When Christ arose He arose on the "Mia" day of the week. The Mia referred to in Timothy means first. No where is Scripture is man commanded to have only one wife, on the contrary only Bishops. Women, on the other hand, are in fact commanded to have only "One husband". This is plainly stated in the Greek. So it there inequality with God? I quote Romans, " Can the clay say to the Potter, "Why have you made me thus?" Please note: No where is Scripture do you find the command to have one wife for Christians. Looking forward to your rebuttal. PT