BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The tree in front of me is not there

I am going to go out on a "limb" here and say that there is no tree in front of me. The tree that I see in front of me is just a figment of my imagination that I have created a boundary around. Because I see it my body believes that it can not go through the tree. The tree is just there because my mind has put it there. Therefore the tree is just a figment of my imagination. Also, we do not know if everyone sees the exact same this all the time, therefor you could be right where I am and see that there is a tree behind me and not in front of me proving that there is no tree in front of me. All and all there is not a tree in front of me. It is just something that my mind has put there to delude me of my work.
All students should have an after school job.

You see, it's kind of a catch 22 though. You say a teenager or young adult won't have time to pursue their interests if they work and go to school, however, how are they supposed to afford to have interests if they don't have money for said interests? Interests that are free(cost no money) are very limited. I'd also like to point out, from personal experience, it is very possibly to have interests, to be working 20 hours or less a week, and to be going to school full-time. I had a job working as a telephone survey taker, working about 20 hours every week while going to school with 15 credit hours of classes and a president of a club that took up several hours during the week. I learned, from this experience, how to manage my time and ended up with approximately 15-20 hours of free time each week after I studied, went to classes, went to work, and did club activities. I even maintained a GPA above 3.5. While, maybe 15-20 hours a week is not ideal for the many interests a person has, it is still enough to enjoy things. If we want to include the club activities in as part of my interests/free time, which technically it was, I had probably 20-25 hours of free time each week. There is enough time in a day to go to classes, work, study, sleep, and have some free time left over. For example, let's say classes and walking between classes takes up 4 hours(I say four hours since usually one has about 3 classes in day in college, since few classes are 5 days a week), sleep takes up 7-8 hours, work is 4 hours+1 hour of commuting back and forth let's say, and studying is another 4 hours. Then let's take out 2 hours for getting ready for the day and to eat(that's usually how fast I was at eating 3 meals a day and getting ready). That leaves 1-2 hours of free time each day you have work, and let's not forget that if you're working 20 hours a week, 4 hours a day, that is only 5 days out of the week, so the days you don't work you have more hours left than that, 4 hours extra to be precise. In addition to that, you also don't go to classes every day so that's another 4 hours added during those days. So since that's two days for both, that adds another 16 hours of free time per week, plus the 1-2 hours of free tie when you do work and go to school, that's 21-26 hours of free time per week. All of this really just requires time management to be honest, and that is a good skill to have.
All students should have an after school job.

But would you like to work if everything was OK with your finances? Yes, maybe some experts assume that it is beneficial for students' GPA and discipline. But let's look from another point. A person spends one-third of their lives working, not taking into consideration part-time jobs in childhood. We shouldn't forget that students are children, not working machines. They will have enough work during their lives, so in teen ages they should have freedom from "adult" lives. Moreover, early entry into a negative or harsh work environment may encourage negative views of work. And it consequently can have an impact on the future, making a working student think that the job is challenge and nothing but the means of getting money. Even if 15 or less hour-work doesn't have an influence on students' marks, it will definitely deprive them of free time. Due to this, students won't have time for their hobbies and for expanding their outlooks by reading, watching films, etc. This time is very inportant for formation of a student's individuality and view on the world. If they are destitute of it in childhood, what to say about adulhood, when there are much more working hours? Also, exactly at this period of live children should choose their future profession according to their interests. but if they don't have any interests due to after school job, It can be very hard for them and can lead to the wrong choice of profession.
All students should have an after school job.

Note: any words in caps is supposed to mean more emphasis on the word, not that I'm shouting. I'll address both of the arguments my opponent made with the following. One could say that the best measurement of whether work effects productivity for school is a look at the students' GPA. While it seems logical to conclude that since a job detracts time from a student, that it would results in a drop in GPA. However, "Most studies conclude that this is only the case when the student"s number of hours worked per week exceeds 20 hours. "[1] In fact, students who work 1-15 hours a week actually had HIGHER GPA's on average than students who did not work and those who worked more than 20 hours [1] [2] While it's true that "64 percent [of student workers] reported that employment also increased their level of stress", it was also found that "74 percent of student "workers believed that employment forced them to become more efficient. "[1] Ehrenberg and Sherman, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, did "not find any strong evidence...that hours of work during the academic year in the range that students worked significantly reduced grade point averages." [3] Therefore, it can be concluded that working a part-time job less than 20 hours a week can actually help the GPA of students. Another potential result in a student working is that it will take longer to graduate or possibly cause a student to drop classes. It was in fact found that there is a 10% higher chance of either occurring for students who worked more than 20 hours a week, "however, working 20 hours or less per week on campus did not seem to have an effect on drop"out rates compared to non"workers." [1] In fact, one expert thinks having a part-time job under 20 hours increases the chances of completing college. Therefore, a part-time job that is under 20 hours a week is most beneficial to students, as it gives them a work ethic that will improve their grades, gives them money to help pay for college expenses, and makes it more likely they will finish college. Sources: [1] http://www.byu.edu... [2] http://nces.ed.gov... [3] http://www.nber.org...
All students should have an after school job.

The arguments why students shouldn't have a job after school: 1) Job reduces their productivity in studying. For example, when students works, it always requires some physical or mental effort, so a lot of energy is lost at job; consequently, children come home tired and don't have any desire and vigor to do homework or prepare for the exams. Education, in return, has a great impact over the future of children. if they study well, they will be able to get enrolled in a good college, and then get high-paid job. in this case, it's better to study very good now and get a full-time job with good salary in future rather than study bad due to part-time and low-paid job and lose an opportunity to have a good, stable income in the adulthood. 2) Work is time consuming. Students spend their precious time at job instead of improving their grades, enhancing relationships with family or friends. It can lead to the deterioration of connection between these students and their relatives, peers due to the lack of communication. For instance, imagine the side of a working student's parents: their kid is absent half of the day because of school, and, plus to this, 2- 3 hours at job. As a result, parents don't see their child for most of the day and don't have an opportunity to speak with him properly(because child come tired after job and isn't eager to talk very much), to ask him about his life at school, marks, friends. The similar situation with friends: while job-free students go out and communicate with each other, improving their social skills( which are, by the way, very necessary for being competitive the future), a working child loses his bounds with his friends, gradually drifting apart from them.
All students should have an after school job.

Since you didn't provide a strong argument, and only stated what you believe, I'll do the same to keep it fair, however, please offer sources and evidence in your next argument so that I can do the same. I am going to argue that working a part-time job at or under 20 hours a week is actually beneficial to students because it forces students to use their time wisely, and gets them into a schedule. In addition, I believe the sooner that they begin working, the better off they'll be as it will open gateways to other forms of employment.
abortion should be banned

Initially, premature sex does not have much to do with abortion; premature sex would mainly be the issue of whether sexual education should be given out at young ages to teach children about that sort of thing. Even then, it doesn't pose that much of a difference. Premature sex will likely not change at all if abortion is legal; it won't do much difference as children who aren't older than the age limitations will likely not have any idea of that sort of thing anyway, nor would they care if they were aware. As for your other part, how often do you see premature sex shown in the media? Granted, the media isn't the most reliable source as often it depends on which form of news media as well as the fact that it can be biased and ignore certain news in favour of others, but you see rape a lot more than premature sex; you also hear about it more. Rape is a huge problem in society, and premature sex? That isn't a very common issue at all. That last sentence... what exactly are you basing that off? Out of all the rape cases I've read about, I have never seen one where a rapist forces the victim to take an abortion pill. But, let's assume that is the case. Will every single rapist (and judging by the rape culture that we are hopefully fighting, there's quite a few rapists) force their victim to take an abortion pill? Children WOULD be born, and a lot of children, at that. And to say that the government would take the baby off the woman after she has it is essentially victim blaming, in a sense. You're saying that rather than teach the rapist not to rape, you would rather force the woman through childbirth, painful labour (and if your premature arguments are worth anything, extremely painful labour as the undeveloped children that DO have sex will have to give birth using their own bodies, of which all would not be ready for such a streinuous effort as childbirth) and force them to then hand the baby over to the government and move on? I could say more, but my time is cut short as I have to go to class. I look forward to seeing your retaliating argument, however.
abortion should be banned

i agree to that last question but the problem is that the number of premature sex is more than the number of women being raped. i think the child of the poor woman who was raped is now the government's responsibility. in fact, nowadays, rapist and other people will not use contraception so that they can feel 'true' pleasure. rapist will force the victim to take abortion pill after raping her so that the victim have no physical evidence that he did rape her.
abortion should be banned

The proportion of people having sex without contraception will not necessarily be high just because there is abortion available. The knowledge that there is abortion available does not change that, and there is not quantifiable evidence to support that they would. Alongside this, I present the topic you likely expected to see made when you made the debate; if a person is made pregnant due to being raped and is too young to properly support the child in any way, should that person be forced to live with the baby anyway, possibly ruining that person's life as well as the baby's childhood?
If we knew the position of every atom we could predict our behaviour perfectly. Destiny exists.

It's not even theoretically possible because since the universe is infinite, and matter could be scattered throughout the universe, we can't even theoretically calculate the motion of all the atoms. (Because we would have to calculate infinity, which is not an actual number).Also, even if the universe isn't infinite, it's expanding at a rate we cannot possibly chase on. We can't be sure what the atoms near the edge of the universe move like, because the expansion is too fast for observation for evidence for calculation. Thanks and vote me.
If we knew the position of every atom we could predict our behaviour perfectly. Destiny exists.

Haha seems so. No i once again took on too many debates than I could manage. This is what I wrote before I ran out of time if anybody was interested. I will re do this debate. I apologise If a computer can simulate a ball dropping and calculate from its characteristics and environment, the behaviour of that ball, what's to stop a computer from knowing the behaviour of an atom, and simulating its response to an environment? And if you can do that then, if you knew the positions of every Atom in the universe at any one time, why couldnt you program them all them atoms in there, and observe their responses to the other atoms. There is no reason why this wouldn't work, because all things are atoms, and if we could know the behaviour and position of them all perfectly, then those responses could be simulated. Obviously this could never, ever happen. But theoretically its possible, so there is a future laid out, but it means nothing. Our choices are still the same and nothing is different. Don't expect any votes, thank you
Crumple(Pro) or Fold(Con)

You say that the crumple method provides more cusion, which is true, but the cusion compromises the surface area of the piece of toilet paper requiring more crumples pieces of toilet paper than folded paper. Also, the amount of cusion does not affect how much pressure is required. The amount of cusion allows you to push harder on the piece of toilet paper without it tearing but the amount of cusion in the folding method makes virtually no difference when you push the required amount of pressure to wipe. Also, it you want to prevent the poop from getting on you butt you simply fold it more times. Also, the crumple method must be carefully inserted in the butt at a more specific location. This means that the total surface area is low so it makes you more vulnerable to the touch poop with bare hand scenario, which is the primary concern of avoidance when wiping the butt. Since there is more surface area on the folded piece of paper it has a greater chance of avoiding the raw poop touch by the hand, which is another reason why the folding method is better. Also, I never said that a folded toilet paper would hurt your butt because toilet paper is so soft that it is not going to hurt you. I never said that. You made a false statement that you do need to widen your butt more the crumple way. When you have a folded piece of paper, it can be inserted between the cheeks better because of the thin width of the toilet paper being able to slide more easily into the crack. But the crumple is a ball of toilet paper and the crumpled ball does not have this luxary because there is not a thin end on the toilet ball. To help illustrate this point, imagine trying to clench a piece of folded paper between your butt vs a fold piece of paper in your butt. You can visualize the thin end of the toilet paper fitting nicely in your butt but the crumpled pieces of paper has no proper way to slip into the crack and this causes the butt crack to widen.Also, the fold method costs you a fraction of a second to actually do it. The crumple method is faster to crumple but because it is harder to fit into the crack that it a time waster and the times for both methods end up being about the same.People do have more comfort doing the folding method but you do not do it only for the comfort. You mainly do it for the effectiveness of using less toilet paper and wiping more poop off your butt in the places that a folded paper cannot reach.The last statement I would like to make about the debate is summarizing a quote that you put which is "And if you try to find enjoyment cleaning it up, you're just sick." You say that it does not matter how you clean up the poop so you obviously do not feel as strongly about your side as I do to mine, which is why I think my debate holds stronger.Thank you for this debate Pro. I am at least glad that we got one good round in and I would like to wish you good luck on future debate is the future. One more thing, I have never said butt so many times in my life.
Crumple(Pro) or Fold(Con)

I apologize for forfeiting, my family has been really busy over the weekend due to Memorial Day preparations, and I hope the voters and my opponent will understand. Crumpling provides more of a cushion for your butt whenever you wipe. This makes it more comfortable, because you don't need to apply as much pressure with your fingers to wipe. In addition, because of this cushion, it provides a bigger barrier between your fingers and your butt, so that you don't accidentally get poop on your fingers. People argue that because there are random folds and creases, the toilet paper is not smooth and would hurt your butt. That is not the case, as toilet paper is designed to be soft, and the folds are not rigid enough to even notice if it is scratching your butt. You also don't need to uncomfortably spread your butt extra wide, because the toilet paper will crumple to conform to your butt whenever you begin wiping. Just because you crumple, doesn't necessarily mean that your toilet paper is short and fat and can't fit in your butt crack easily. Crumpling is also a time saver. If you are in a rush, you aren't going to have the time to neatly fold up a piece of toilet paper to clean your butt with. Crumpling allows you to wipe and go. There is honestly too much of a big deal placed on the comfort that you need to wipe your butt. A wise man once said, "People who say they fold because it is more comfortable are dumb. The enjoyable part of pooping should be the actual process of eliminating the waste, not cleaning it up afterwards. And if you try to find enjoyment cleaning it up, you're just sick. Thank you for this debate Con, I apologize again for forfeiting, but I hope that you can understand. I would also like to remind the voters not to vote based on personal preference, but on who had the most convincing arguments. Thank you.
Crumple(Pro) or Fold(Con)

Well, my opponent has forfeited. I will still present my case for why the fold method is better than the crumple method. The fold method provides a clear surface to allow poop to attatch on to. But, the crumple method does not have a clear surface but rather just a bunch of piece of toilet paper that have fold marks on them but these fold mark are not the same one that I am describing. These are crumple fold marks that fold the toilet paper at random positions. These randon fold positions make for a not smooth surface to rub the poop on. Another reason is that the folding method allows for the most efficient surface for poopt to be smeared on. The long and thin piece of toilet paper can slide more easily between the crack and remove the poop more eaily instead of a thick ball that you must uncomfortably spread your butt extra wide to wipe the crack.
Crumple(Pro) or Fold(Con)

Anyone who has ever wiped their butt knows what I mean when I say Crumple or Fold. It's simple: Crumple: "Ripping off toilet paper and just sticking it up there and wiping, often using obscene amounts of paper and just going for it." Fold: "Neatly tearing off a few pieces of toilet paper, folding it up really nice and proper, and delicately wiping." The Burden of Proof will be shared. I am Pro, in favor of the crumple, and Con will be in favor of folding. You must show the benefits of folding and why it is better than crumpling to win. I hope this debate isn't too "crappy". ;)
driving age should be 21 nationally

By the use of the word "rigid" in your explanation of my proposition shows that you may not completely understand what I am proposing. I am not suggesting that 21 be the starting point for gaining driving skills. By implementing a GDL system to the age of 21 age, college students would still be able to drive to school. However, such a system might necessitate them not driving on weekends, or perhaps after 10pm, the hours and days when many of the statistical data shows these fatal accidents occur. The experience necessary for driving at night and on weekends could be better gained while another, more experienced driver is sitting in the passenger seat. Having a 20-year old driver only driving after 10pm while in the company of another driver who has, for example, 10 years or more experience would dramatically reduce the opportunity for drinking, use of narcotics, and driving or excessive speeding. Also, you proposal of starting driver education even earlier is not a sound idea. Having Little Johnny learn how to drive even earlier than 15 or 16 would only invite complication. As research shows, young minds are hardly more attentive and emotionally mature in youth. If, however, such instruction were given at the age of 18, one could easily assume it would fall onto more receptive and attentive ears. Finally, the shock that you suggest our public transportation system would suffer if there were more participating youth would simply not materialize. As it stands now, most public traffic transportation is woefully under utilized. I ask you, how many times have you seen buses only a third full, or seen bike racks at shopping malls completely unused? We could well take a lesson from many other bike using countries (Denmark, Japan, etc.) by demand our youth put down electronics and pedal to school. No, I am still strong in my belief that a GDL system that encompasses older youth, to the age of 21, would have many me benefits than drawbacks. It is just a shame that our voting populace may never see the forest for the trees, and tens of thousands of people will continue to die on the battlefield that has become our nations highways and roads. In deed, more death occur in these battles than our actual wars!