BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

I agree with my opponent on the reluctance issues for student and teacher interaction. I believe this happens because no matter how much encouragement a teacher gives, students know its only so long until its time to change classes and if they're not really interested in learning more, someone will put up their hand and speak but they know that if a teachers passion is to teach, they're waiting for the chance to move, to be more involved. People tend to talk amongst themselves about whatever they want when placed in a class room setting. Give them a new project to work on that is more or less hands on with help from someone else and they'll naturally be interested in it more than writing down notes on a piece of paper. Even my teachers knew this, but the problem was, no direct funding was available to cover everyone comfortably. But to optimize the quality of ones education, students need the hands on experience to be able to show teachers how willing they are to remain not only a part of their class, but a part of their choice to remain in it and as much a willing participant as possible to make the teacher student relationship as comfortable as possible. Students should be given the right to be able to choose who they want as a teacher given the options available, see how they work and should be able to transfer to someone who'd be able to help them more through out the year if they need it. Teachers should have low class sizes so they can focus entirely on the teaching of willing students who selected them preferbly over someone else, instead of being chosen who you're going to be in whose class with. A common problem is that teachers feel if they are people whose saying if you get to choose too early on, you'll come by more of a shock when you can't choose what boss you'll work for later, however I'm saying that's really the reason why nobody likes to choose how they learn something because they weren't asked. I know a lot of people whose requested a school transfer because a class they really want to take is being offered and if they want it bad enough, they will and should be given the choice to do so. this is already starting to happen. the biggest step people need to realize is that nobody has really explained to them all of what homework teaches people. they hate doing it, but they have no reason to not do it and so many people don't do it because they forget its not a necessity. For that reason alone, it should be banned or not required to pass a course, but the experience and interest shown in practical experience should compensate the need to have homework accept in projects where there's no other way, such as science or math. And, if people want to know more about them, the internet is our best friend. Either way, something has to be done about the necessity of how people view the school system and higher priorities need to be set clearly on what problems happen while at school, and how to make jobs less stressful by focusing on the quality of a service instead of how much you can make off selling more things to repeat the same process in competitive and other markets abroad.
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

My opponent accepts the fact that bullying happens at school, and implies that students that are determined to learn and put their knowledge to use in the future will not be deterred by insults from bullies. My opponent suggests that bully can lead to socialization, from the line "boys must be boys, and bullying sometimes can and does happen, be that as it may, socialization is good for students to mingle amongst each other", which he states is good for teens and recommends that there be a period in which teens can mingle amongst each other to discuss what they've learned or other issues. I agree that determined students will not be discouraged from bullies and that socialization is a good thing, yet I disagree with the extra period for teens to mingle. I say this since I am a high school student and from personal experience, I have observed that when teens interact it is mostly about short term things. By short term I mean the latest stories, gossip, telling jokes, or playing games, etc. Rarely have I seen teens discuss what they've learned outside the classroom unless it involves a bad teacher, or homework assignments. When I hear my peers talk about homework, it mainly involves the question "Hey, what did you get for question x?" rather than how to do the question and when the students do ask how to do it, others will tell them how to do that 1 particular problem rather than the general formula for similar questions. I have also noticed that students do not open up to teachers much, as when the teacher asks a question only 1 or 2 will answer after a short pause, also that students go to the teacher for help as a sort of last resort. From what I have observed, students will ask their peers about questions they cannot answer, if the peer cannot answer said question, that is when students head to the teacher for advice, only if the assignment is not due the day the student asks his peers. That being said, I believe that the extra period for mingling would be a bad idea as teens may misuse it, however I would agree to short extensions on breaks up to about 5-10 minutes, I believe that anymore than that would be a hindrance to their education. Again, I would like to stress that this is what I have observed from my school, and I do not know how student to student and student to teacher interactions occur in other schools.
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

What my opponent says is true, however, students who care more about how well they can personally use a set of tools will be better off at using them if they wish to do so later on in life than those who are accepted because they have a best of the best marks at something they may have all but had to answer a history lesson on and little more. Practical experience if morals say history is to be important should teach us just how real a certain subject is and marks should be graded as such and therefore, based on how well the student can grasp the concept to further their learning since every person learns just that much different and however it be said that certain universal skills of learning can and must be applied in some ways, they must be different in others. As my opponents states, boys must be boys, and bullying sometimes can and does happen, be that as it may, socialization is good for students to mingle amongst each other. In fact, teachers should have public periods where the entire school should get together not just at meal times for students to talk amongst themselves and share what they're learning about with others, free speech is encouraged. I believe it should be made clear to students that having times to talk amongst other schoolers would be a good idea to set up some sort of an academy and have longer break periods to give kids the option to either socialize or do whatever they want during those times as a part of their schedule.
Military Conscription is Unjust.

I hope I read correctly, as Lwerd is a phenomenal debater, but she said she would make her argument in RD 1; I think she meant RD 2. If I read correctly, I am to accept the clarifications only in this round so I will do so. I have been absent for several weeks due to personal issues so a debate with you, ma'am, is a welcome return as I have RFD'd a few of your past debates and expect to learn much from you. I will accept the Con position to the full resolution, "(Legalized) Military conscription is/would be unjust in the United States." I accept your definition of military conscription in this frame work and will focus on the United States. I ask that your use of "some established authority" be the United States, as I do not wish to address conscription within private militias. From reading your revised resolution, I do not think you wish to do so either. I look forward to a great debate and welcome your RD 2 presentation.
Military Conscription is Unjust.

I. INTRODUCTION I noticed that debate challenges have been pretty scarce lately, so I decided to post one of my own. This will be a three-round debate, during which I will spend the first round making any necessary clarifications, and using Rounds 2 and 3 to make and conclude my arguments. I acknowledge that as Pro (and more importantly, as the instigator) I have the burden of proof. Thus I ask that my future opponent utilize R1 to either accept or refute my clarifications; I will make my opening arguments in R1. Thank you to whomever accepts this debate, and good luck! II. CLARIFICATIONS Military Conscription: A general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority. It is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just males) to serve in the armed forces. It is known by various names — for example, the most recent conscription program in the United States was known colloquially as 'the draft' [Wikipedia]. Unjust: Lacking in justice or fairness [Dictionary] I also encourage that this debate focus primarily on the United States; that is to say that the resolution actually reads: (Legalized) Military conscription is/would be unjust in the United States. If my opponent disagrees with these parameters, I ask that it be addressed along with reasoning detailing the opposition.
Cats are better than dogs for pets

Reasons why cats make better pets than dogs. Low maintenance vs. High maintenance -The independent behavior of a cat trumps the dependent behavior of a dog. All dogs generally need high maintenance by their owner. Dogs need to be taken out to the bathroom on a leash. Especially if it is raining or the weather is bad you wouldn't want to take the dog out. Cats don't need to be walked. Cats on the other hand will only need to be let out the door. Unless if it is an indoor cat, they'll need a litter box but they can help them selves to that at any time they need too. Also you need to sometimes wake up to let your dog out in the middle of the night, which is a pain if you want a full nights rest. -Dogs need to be cleaned by the owner. A dog smells if not cleaned and if it is a long haired dog it will need to be brushed. Cats clean them selves with their tongue, so baths aren't necessary. Behavior -The behavior of a dog is nothing compared to a cat. When a guest arrives the dog wont treat the guest politely. The dog will bark and bark! Maybe even jump on the guest, scratching at their legs until ripped off by someone. Cats will just sit there calmly or maybe even come out to be petted, but never the cat will jump or hump the leg of the new arrival. Dogs at the dinner table are sure to beg, crying and staring. If you look away the dog might even run away with your meal! Cats wont do this. I've never met a cat that begs at the dinner table. - The loudest cat is quieter than any dog. Dogs will bark at the dumbest things. To a knock at the door, to foot steps or even just seeing you unexpectedly. Cats keep their voices to them selves. They might have the occasional hiss or meow but it wont be enough to annoy someone. The bonus that comes with a cat. -Cats are natural hunters, if a mouse/rodent enters the house the cat will surely try to catch it, like an exterminator. Cats also catch bugs. Lets say a moth enters the house. The cat will be spending all of its time to eat the moth. Which is a good thing! because who would want bugs in the house anyways? Entertainment - It isn't hard to entertain a cat. All you need is a laser pointer and you can have fun all you want! If the cat doesn't like laser pointers than you can use other alternatives, like a piece of string. Dogs don't take care of their toys. They constantly rip balls or other toys apart in the first few days. Or sometimes even in minutes! -Cats can be funny at anytime, sometimes you'll see a cat in a box and pop out quickly. Sometimes you might see a cat use its agility and jump from place to place. Affection -Nothing beats the cats purr. When a cat cuddles up and purrs it is showing that it is very happy. -Dogs just lick when excited and it gets really gross since you don't know where the dogs mouth has been. My opponent was right. I should've made more rounds so I could post more awesome reasons :)
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does

When I say whites facing racism is close to nothing. What I mesn is that it is not impossible, as yes it has happened in the past ,however we are discussing current events of racial discrimination. So in other words in the year which we are living in, may I remind you that it is 2017, racism towards whites is cloese to non existent. When I say whites, I mean those discluding latinos. Just because Trump has not said anything racist does not mean he is NOT a racist. As it is questionable why he has not speaken out against the american systems horrific treatment of young black men. Need I remind you that statistics show in 2015 and 2016 more black men were killed by cops than cops killed whites. So Trump has enough time to make tweets about the recent arrest of black american players in China than to acknowledge the killings of black. You say caucasions have been the instigators recently, well in fact they have been the instigators for a very long time. And the comments he made about building a wall. He dis not just say "oh I'm gonna build a wall just for the fun of building a wall". No. He specifically said he is going to build the wall to prevent drug dealer and criminals from entering the U.S. Well what do you call that? As ethnic discrimimation and racism are synonyms.Does it make it any less right?
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does

Ok, I see that you are very mad. For one, I remember Obama was recently our president, so yes I think America is getting better. I don't understand how people think Trump is a racist at all. For one, building a wall is not racist, no matter how dumb it is. Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality. Muslim is also not a race, it is a religion. I only bring these points up because they are most commonly used points to argue Trump is a racist. And I did not say that speaking out against racism is fueling the fires at all. I said that racism itself is fueling the fires. The comment you made stating that racism towards whites is next to nothing is also not true. Every single race in history has been enslaved from one point or another. Although I agree that Caucasian people have recently been the instigators, it seems that they are not the only race that can be racist. Also you have forgot the point I made on affirmative action. Thank you for debating me in a logical manner.
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does

"America's attempting to fix that". I have to disagree with you on that. The minute that "America" voted Trump for presidency, is the minute America has proved that they agree with the racism. Trump is the living epitome of racism/bigotry. So for someone like that to have won the presidential election it is not merely an attempt to "fix" the racism but allow/condone and even preach it. You said responding with racism only fuels the fire??!! Since when did speaking up/acting out against racism become racism itself/fuel the fire. The fire was already fuelled enough by racist remarks made by WHITES. So with all due respect you cannot just throw points out there and not out argue both sides.
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does

Although I agree with you that their is a problem in the USA, I am also noticing this thing called affirmative action which seems to favor the minority. Americas not perfect, (police brutality etc) but it seems to be attempting to fix that. Responding with racism towards whites just fuels the fire. America should be a place where judgement should be based on skill level and intelligence, not skin color. Racism IS two sided and should be stoped altogether.
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does

Your very much right on the definition of racism. I understand it is just not black people who are discriminated against. But it is black people who face the most discrimination. Although the Black Lives matter party have become slightly violent in their methods of awareness. The movement was started with good intentions of bringing awareness to the police brutality of black men. We live in a world right now, whereby discrimination against whites is close to non-existent. In fact when discussing racism in this present day and world, I find it quite ignorant for people as a defense to state in response to racism against blacks "well white people get discriminated against as well". It focuse the attention away from the real problem we have.
Does Racism go both ways? i think it does

First of all, thank you for accepting my challenge. Although the points you have brought up can be argued, that is not what this argument is about. The dictionary defines racism as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Notice how it does not reference white people in anyway. Even if white people were the initial cause of racism, it does not mean that they are the only people who can be racist. Racism has been shown from different cultures have been shown many times. The once peaceful Black Lives Matter protest has escalated in some part into many people calling out for dead cops and beating up people just because of their skin color. This does not represent the whole moment, but they are things that are happening more. This is just one example from many.
Super pacs harm the election process.

Observation 1: This debate is looking at whether super pacs are a harm to the election process not just the presidential outcome. The argument that Obama won even though he had less money from outside sources isnt a defining argument, we have to look further into what is the actual process. Observation 2: The election process deals w/ voters, any primary races, and it can also include the presidential race. Moving on to my three main points. 1. Super pacs hurts voters trust in the election process. Sub Point A: voter turnout Sub Point B: corruption 2. Super pacs allow for foreign corporations to have their opinion put into our politics. 3. Super pacs allow for rich to sway voter opinion through ads. Sub point A: minority of rich shouldnt have more voice than majority Sub point B: Super pacs can spend far more than individual. I look forward to a great debate.
Super pacs harm the election process.

This round is my rebutal speech. Moving down my oponents flow. 1. Increased ads raise voter turnout. The first thing we need to look at is in the evidence that my oponent presents, it is a survey from 2000, before the citizens united decision. It argues that while when a voter sees more ads they are more likely to vote. Well as this survey was taken at a time before the citizens united decision was enacted, it is no longer a revelant survey. The oponent might try to argue that an ad is an ad, but looking at the evidence i provided which is a survey which directly corelates with people being less likely to vote as a result of the influence of super pacs (look at my first point in my case), you can see that now with the C.U decision in place, people are less likely to vote because of Super Pacs making my evidence more relevant and it also has a bigger impact so this point should be moved over to my side of the flow. 2.C.U decision allows voters to make more informed decisions. First off i would like to cross apply my first argument with voter turnout by saying that if people are less likely to vote as a result of the C.U decision, than they are clearly not making informed decisions as they feel like their voice is being drowned out by these super pacs. Also i would like to bring forward the information in the survey that 73% of the people surveyed said there would be less corruption without super pacs. If people feel like there is corruption b/c of super pacs, they arent making more informed decisions as a result because they don't know whether or not to believe these ads that super pacs are releasing. 3. C.U increases transperancy. Sub point A:My opponent is arguing that because super Pacs are transparent they lessen the political corruption that the Super Pacs themselves are causing. His argument is a completely ridiculous as it states that the transparency of Super Pacs lowers political corruption. However, the political corruption that it lowers is being caused by the Super Pacs, if the Super Pacs didnt exist there wouldnt be a need for the transparency to lower the political corruption. Sub point B: My opponent claims that the transparency of Super Pacs allows people to know where the money from our politics is coming, however, this is the same case scenario as his sub point A. There wouldnt be a need to know where this money is coming from if there weren't super Pacs. All my opponent's third point is doing is defending super pacs, it is not saying why they either don't harm or how they benefit the election process. For these reasons I strongly urge a pro ballot.
Evolution Does Not Exist

Now that we have that argument out of the way, I would like to start off the real debate by using examples brought throughout history that show how evolution does in fact, exist. Evolution is simply adaptations of creatures that happen over thousands of years. Charles Darwin first explains how this happens in his famous "Finch" studies on the Galapagos Islands. This shows how one type of finch evolves to form new beak types for different food available, color of feathers to hide better in the island brush, and the loss of gain of senses. If we trace this line of evolution from man back through history, a very detailed line of progression from ape to modern man is clear. Granted there are holes, but these holes are being filled every day with new discoveries. I will now wait to go on, to see if my opponent has any beneficial words to say, besides those that criticize my supposed intelligence.
Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence

So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence," who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.