BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
prayer should be in schools

"I would like to state that my apponet whole rebudle was about pray dosnt lead students down the wrong path. That should be irrelevant because it not a provent fact. " In debate, there is a term entitled "burden of proof". The one who makes the positive statement must prove it before he uses it as evidence. My opponent was the one basing his argument solely on the concept that prayer and discipline are exclusively linked. I countered by offering examples as to how discipline may not necessarily rely completely on prayer. My opponent has failed to counter my points. My opponent has failed to make a case for himself. Thus, his argument falls because his only premise is rendered completely useless. "Also schools in texas, cannot have prayer. So him saying that is also irrelevant. At no given time could a student recite a prayer out load. " My opponent is half right and half wrong. First of all, students are allowed to engage in silent, nondisruptive prayer at any moment of the day . http://law.findlaw.com... What exactly is the purpose of disruptive prayer? A prayer is communication between you and God, no one else. Spoken prayer does not give more discipline than silent prayer, my opponent is simply making up random arguments and hurling them out in the hopes that one will make sense. "Because people have freedom of religion and should be able to pray if the desire. " First, I repeat that students have the right to silently pray. And as for the rest of this argument, the concept of the slippery slope applies. If one can pray out loud by freedom of religion, why can one not SHOUT his prayer? Or perhaps, use a megaphone to amplify the prayer? If one can pray to the Christian God, why not shout Muslim prayers? Or Hindu prayers? Or prayers to the Chinese folk Gods? Or the Greek Gods? That would be fine, but very noisy. Thus, the best option is to respect everyone's religious beliefs and keep prayer private. Since my opponent has failed to make a case, I urge a Con vote.
prayer should be in schools

I would like to state that my apponet whole rebudle was about pray dosnt lead students down the wrong path. That should be irrelevant because it not a provent fact. Also schools in texas, cannot have prayer. So him saying that is also irrelevant. At no given time could a student recite a prayer out load. So I like to stand and affirm that prayer should be in schools. Because people have freedom of religion and should be able to pray if the desire. Please vote for the affirmative
prayer should be in schools

I shall be arguing against my opponent's assertion that prayer should be made legal in schools. I will first start by stating that since prayer is legal in schools, as well as everywhere else, my opponent must be talking about either mandatory prayer, or public/group prayer organized by schools. My opponent's only point is that prayer leads kids down the right track of discipline. I disagree with this notion because I believe prayer does nothing to improve a child's discipline. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Discipline is essentially the molding of moral character, conduct, and obedience. I believe that praying does none of these. Discipline would theoretically arise from reading scripture and following God's law, not necessarily from communication with God. In addition, there are many ways to ensure discipline in young children. I myself was beaten every time I did something wrong, like break a dish or get less than an A on an exam. I was also beaten when I disrespected my elders, acted out, or rebelled. Beatings are a very effective disciplinary tool. One that works both at home and at school. Another way would be to reward children when they do something positive, to encourage good behavior. To teach them the virtue of patience, for example, you could tell them that if they were good and did not ask for anything for one month, you would give them a coveted video game or toy. God is not always this predictable, and to mimic this exercise with prayer might make a child frustrated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Halo 3 is better than Call of Duty 4.

I would imagine in debate that as the people that read this would not just want our standings and opinions but FACTS about our topics. In my previous arguments above I have managed to display FACT that COD 4 is new, fresh, and genuine and stands out completely compared to Halo 3. COD 4 is original and has brought brand new stuff to the COD franchise, if you cannot see the transition from WORLD WAR II to MODERN WARFARE than you are not reading this. Halo 3 only managed to bring SOME and I'll say it again SOME new things to its franchise, making the game more of just a sequel or cleche instead of brand NEW. I.If you read my argument above you can clearly see that I have established the LARGE differences between COD 4, PRO saying"He has hardly put arguments toward why COD 4 is great and why Halo 3 is bad AND has NOT compared the two." All I have done is compared to why COD 4 is better than Halo 3. The Pro has shown no evidence but just opinions why Halo 3 is better. Everyone has opinions and you cant win with just an opinion. My opinion is obvously stated COD 4 is better than Halo 3, why do you think Im debating this? II.Pro manages to compare COD 1 and Halo 1 in his argument, this is COD 4 and Halo 3. Halo IS unrealistic and COD 4 is more real, heck we are fighting a war in the middle east right now.There is nothing more to say about Halo 3 and COD 4 and its predeccor games, only that Halo has managed to stay in the alien world and COD 4 has moved on from the WWII to Modern Warfare seen today. "If you look at it, COD 4 is just a bunch of buildings in different environments that make it EXTREMELY repetitive.", that is a Pro opinion and does he speak for everyone? III.People obviously care about the COD franchise when it still is making big money today. If they didnt care COD 4 would not have been a hit, so does that mean the next will be even bigger? The final piece of the Pro argument talks about testing 100 gamers and picking up the differences in Halo. Lets try that from COD 3 to COD 4 and see if anyone can see the differnence(in which i have explained in my last 2 arguments, in fact and not in opinion.), if 100 players could see the difference between COD 3 and 4. And with that I'll leave you with a quote from his 3rd round. " People get excited for a new COD game". Thank you for reading and this was fun
Halo 3 is better than Call of Duty 4.

I.Just because you get bored with 3 rounds of COD 4 doesnt mean everyone is the same. Again its an opinion that you would rather play Halo 3 than COD 4. I will need some statistics to believe that most people agree with what you say. II. Just because Halo 3 jumped from xbox to the 360 doesnt mean its an achievement. While we are highlighting Halo 3 and its INCREDIBLE jump to the 360, why dont we highlight other games that have done it as well. Ummm, like Madden, Grand Theft Auto, or Medal of Honor. Its a game its not like its hard to switch to a different system. Halo 3 only managed to add a COUPLE new guns not ALL. Everything was World war II meaning ALL the guns, and COD 4 was modern warfare meaning ALL modern guns. So if that isnt new enough, gun or weapon wise I dont know what it is. Map wise you arent fighting on alien maps, its different locations in the world. Its not just France like in COD 3, COD 4 provides different locales. If you are looking for new features for both games. Halo has added graphics, SOME new weapons and vehicles, and new maps. COD 4 is ALL new with added graphics, new weapons and vehicles and new maps. You would be blind to not notice the difference between COD 3 and COD 4. But Halo 3 doesnt offer enough new stuff to stand out compared to Halo 2. The game isnt completely new and genuine compared to COD 4. If all it can offer is SOME new stuff that isnt genuine enough. COD 4 is completely and 100% new compared to its predecessors. III. COD 4 hasnt had the chance for 2 more sequels. We dont know if they will or not but im sure when the first Halo came out everyoen couldnt wait for the second. If a sequel to COD 4 came out people would be just as anxious as they would Halo. COD 4 also has a map pack that you can purchase for more maps. If there was another Halo to come out it would be ONLY for money. As I recall the advertising for it "Finish the Fight", but I understand lets just start another fight so we can make another game. If another COD 4 was to come out, after all its success how could anyone say "Oh its just going to be another COD game". After COD 3, COD 4 established something entirely new. You could say Halo is maybe 50% new since it has only new grahics and some added weapons and vehicles.
Halo 3 is better than Call of Duty 4.

I-->What you have to see here is that my argument that is MOST fact is being called an opinion. More people get excited for Halo 3 when compared to COD 4. Halo 3 is the only FPS that I can play for hours on end. I play COD 4 from time to time, but after only 3 games (or so) I'm bored out of my mind. However, with Halo 3, I can always play for a good 4 hours. COD 4 is another "phase" that people will go through until they eventually move back to the better game...... HALO 3... II.-->The advances made in Halo 3 far outweigh the advances in COD 4 (even though we're not debating the advances but merely the game itself)... However, Halo 3 made the move to the 360 while COD 4 made a move to "modern warfare"... But the only difference with the modern warfare is a war strike you can call in. Sorry... but that isn't enough for me to play for "hours on end. The new guns in Halo 3 and the new Maps (not just some random cities again) make for a new exciting game. III. COD 4 is just a fling. If I were to tell you that a Halo 4 is coming out... People would be exciting. If I were to tell you that COD 5 will be coming out, it would be a reacting such as... OK, just another Call of Duty game. Halo 3 is so much better, that people get excited for a new "Map Pack" being released. COD 4 maps have some buildings while Halo 3 has difference with every map (with launching pads and... well... not just buildings)... In the end, Halo 3 is better than COD 4. Thank You!
Halo 3 is better than Call of Duty 4.

I. Well the first point is opinion only so there is nothing to debate, no fact. II. COD 4 has brought much more compared to Halo 3. There is a huge difference because COD 3 was World War II and COD 4 was modern warfare. Warfare and technology like our army uses today. Halo 3 only added graphics, SOME new weapons and vehicles and that was it. COD 4 managed to switch from WW2 to something completely different and it worked successfully. I dont think Halo contains as much stuff such as upgrading weapons and earning Prestige online. Halo 3, doesnt offer nearly as much, rewarding wise, for the online players. If I was to play a game online for hours, I would want more than just a rank, I would want to upgrade maybe a weapon or something. III. Unless you can give me statistics about that statement there is no way that can be proven. Im sure the Halo fans get bored and switch to COD 4. COD 4 also came out in November so it, is not that new. YOu have to look at the difference between Halo 2 - Halo 3 and than look at the change from COD 3 - COD 4 and the people that made the change to COD 4 actually made something original and different than its predecessor.
Halo 3 is better than Call of Duty 4.

To begin, I offer the following arguments... I. Halo 3 has a better fan base. This is obvious, more people play Halo 3. Sure Call of Duty is fun to play once in a while, but it gets old fast. Halo 3 is ALWAYS a fun game to play no matter how much you've played it before. II. Halo 3 is not just another sequal. With every sequel of Halo comes ACTUAL new stuff. COD4 is just a money-maker while Halo 3 has meaning. It's meaning is to spread Halo to the 360 with added new features (and better graphics). COD4 is the same as COD3. III. Halo 3 is more fun. Again, Halo 3 isn't just a fling of fun gaming. When a new game comes out, people take a break to play that new game, but after a while, people go back to Halo 3. COD4 is just one of those new games. People play that as of now but soon people will begin moving back to Halo 3 (if they haven't already)... Therefore, Halo 3 is better than Call of Duty 4. Thank You!
Thett Tournament 2015/16: Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speechRules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc. )7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP will be shared10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossPro in this debate will advocate legalization, Con advocates a banGood luck
5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School

Yeah that's the very best you can do as you've run out of excuses. You must be so lonely. I CAN feel for you because I know what its like even though I have truly great friends that would absolutely die for me whereas I seriously doubt if you do as so so so many here on debate.org have none. But here's the thing that I know you know... even if someone were to agree with EXACTLY what you were to say and think, you would still manage to find fault with that person.
5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School

Au contraire, mon cher, let's unpack your statements. Isaih 53: Yeshua is the Hebrew world that is translated salvation, and is in the Tanakh, or Old Testament. He is called Jesus in the new. Proof: Christ and Messiah both means annointed one, and are used interchangeably in the Christian and Messianic Jewish communities. Jesus is the Messiah, more proof: https://www.gotquestions.org... As to the violence issue, I am much less violent now that I am a Biblical Christ.ian, and it is Yeshua's Holy Spirit that makes me better. The Bible mentions, but does not endore loads of violence like the skeptical community tends to claim. Have you heard of the saying of not letting history repeat itsself? THAT is why violence is in the Bible, and if you knew of the torture, rape, slavery, and murder that was practiced in pagan cultures, you would have a better understanding of why God does somne of the things He does. Yeshua said he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and that is His command to not live violently save for defense of self, others, or country. Furthermore, Yeshua thought of you when He was on the cross in my opinion, so why are you angry? My caps are only for clarity.
5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School

It is really annoying to hear about a fig tree when Yeshua/Jesus was tortured to death on the cross, but whatever. What other arguments do you have? As to the other scriptures, it is best to use: https://www.blueletterbible.org... and get a sense of the original Hebrew and Greek. Also, using many translations that are literal or somewhere in the middle helps. Read the whole Bible, and follow the judge not according to appearence, but judge with righteous judgement (John 7:24). Let Holy Spirit show you what Scripture means. Why go after trivial things in an attempt to attack the Bible in a way that undermines it? That is ALMOST and ad homenim/strawman.
Abortion is bad

Due to my opponents forfeit (which is a good reason to give me the conduct vote) my opponent will not be able to refute my arguments. That is his fault so he shall have to take whatever nuisance this situation brings. Lets begin. ||My opponents arguments || "What is right about killing a child without them having a say about it." Abortion is not killing a child. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy via the removal of the fetus. Now, a woman's body knows to dispel a fetus if it has any serious mutations that would prevent it from becoming a functional human being. This is why babies are never born without major organs, since the woman miscarries long before the fetus is carried to term. Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature. http://www.healthguidance.org... So, if nature doesn't considers the fetus a human being and all our knowledge (science) is based on nature then why should we consider a fetus a human being? The simple answer is that we shouldn't. However, all that I just said is unnecessary since my opponent never proved that a fetus is a human being and as stated in round one, he has the burden of proof. With this being ignored by my opponent, his entire round falls apart.
Abortion is bad

What is right about killing a child without them having a say about it. Give me one good reason and I can back down from my argument. I cannot see a reason for people to abort there child unless they had no choice(rape.) When people have sex they make a choice to have sex a child occasionally comes with that choice unless protection is used. An argument cannot be made that a women needs to have a choice whether or not to keep her child for it is not her choice to be made. It is the child's.
Abortion is bad

||Burden of proof|| My opponent is the instigator, hence, he has the burden of proof. All I have to do is disprove his arguments. ||My opponents arguments|| "When people have sex they know that there is a possibility that a child is at hand." This does not make abortion wrong, only more frequant. "Use protection then if you want to have sex and you don't want a child." The same point as above. ||Conclusion|| My opponent has yet to make arguments.
Vaccines do not cause autism

In this round I will primarily be focusing on refuting my opponents arguments from the previous round. "Your argument is invalid. First, you are using a source which does not state that the high fevers were linked to the vaccine itself." If one looks at [2] one can see that the CDC clearly explains that high fever is a possible side effect of all the vaccines I listed. " Second, the supposed link to autism due to the high fevers were not due to the vaccine itself, but the side effwcts of the vaccine." I never stated it wasn't. However, if one looks to the framework of the debate one can clearly see that the word "cause" as defined by Miriam Webster meant that i need simply demonstrate that their exists some pathway by which a vaccine could bring about autism. Their is not a requirement for set pathway to only be one step long. "The increase in ice cream sales leads to an increase of drownings. See anything wrong with this? Your statement is quite similar; it is not the ice cream sales leading to the drownings, but rather a hidden factor, higher temperatures. This is an example of a hidden cause relationship." My opponent seems to be confusing a confounding variable with an indirect one. In her example their exists a confounding variable, temperature, which leads to both an increase in ice cream sales and drownings. In the case of vaccines, fever is a result of vaccination which then leads to autism. As such a more apt analogy would be a link between temperature and obesity. Where temperature increases that purchase rate of ice cream which then leads to an increase in obesity. "Now, we cannot assume that the vaccine itself is linked to the high fevers that is linked to autism. There are many factors that can cause a pregnant woman to get a high fever." There may be many factors that can lead to high fevers in pregnant women and thus cause autism. However, that doesn't negate the fact that vaccination can be one of them. Note, the resolution does not ask that I demonstrate that vaccinations are the only cause of autism but rather a cause. "we do not know the direct cause of autism yet, and until we do, your argument is invalid." My opponent is simply making an unsupported claim here. Refer to source [1] in which I demonstrate a clear link between high fevers in pregnant women and autism. Conclusion: I have held up my burden of proof and conclusively demonstrated that their does exist some pathway by which vaccination can lead to autism as specified by the resolution. As such I urge you to negate.
Vaccines do not cause autism

Your argument is invalid. First, you are using a source which does not state that the high fevers were linked to the vaccine itself. Second, the supposed link to autism due to the high fevers were not due to the vaccine itself, but the side effwcts of the vaccine. Consider this analogy: The increase in icecream sales leads to an increase of drownings. See anything wrong with this? Your statement is quite similar; it is not the icecream sales leading to the drownings, but rather a hidden factor, higher temperatures. This is an example of a hidden cause relationship. Now, we cannot assume that the vaccine itself is linked to the high fevers that is linked to autism. There are many factors that can cause a pregnant woman to get a high fever. Keeping this in mind, we do not know the direct cause of autism yet, and until we do, your argument is invalid.
Vaccines do not cause autism

To begin I would like to reiterate the framework of this debate. Namely, as the resolution specifies that vaccines do not cause autism, I simple need demonstrate some pathway by which autism can come about as a result of a vaccination. The negative is not required to demonstrate a direct link by which a vaccination directly leads to autism. Secondly, the negative need only show one instance in which a vaccination could bring about autism as the affirmative has already agreed with this proposition. High fevers in pregnant women can lead to autism In a recent landmark study "A team of UC Davis researchers has found that mothers who had a fever during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to have a child with autism " than mothers who did not have a fever or who took medication to counter its effect" [1] With this in mind let's look at some of the side effects associated with several vaccines. According to the center of Disease control[2] vaccines which have a possible side effect of high fever include but are not limited to, the vaccine for Haemophilus influenza type b, the vaccine for, Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis and Gardasil the vaccine used to prevent HPV. Responses: My opponent makes that claim that the redacted 1998 Andrew Wakefield study implemented a poor methodology and fabricated data. I completely agree, this study was poorly conducted. However, this does not negate the fact the high fevers in women who are pregnant can result in autism and that vaccination can result in such fevers. Conclusion: I have demonstrated that high fever, a side effect of three different vaccinations can bring about autism as specified in the resolution. I have thus fulfilled my burden of proof and ask that you negate this resolution. 1) http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu... 2) http://www.cdc.gov...