BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century.

Ronald Reagan accomplished many things in is two terms. Domestically, he curbed Carter's enormous inflation. He also cut taxes drastically, which spurred business. In foreign policy, he brought the Russians to their knees, and fought the spread of communism. He also rebuilt America. Their military, their prestige, and most importantly, their morale. America had been humiliated by Vietnam and the hostage crisis. Most people would say FDR was the best president of the 20th Century. However, this is wrong. FDR hurt the recovery from the depression, not helped it. He did do a superb job during WW2, but he created the Cold War because he gave the Soviets half of Europe. Reagan had to clean up his mess 40 years later.
Slavery is over. Blacks need to get over it.

The increases in poverty in black communities was caused not by affirmative action creating a culture of entitlement, but by the dismantling of FDR and Eisenhower's social programmes in the seventies and eighties. Affirmative Action was just something to paper the cracks in the reduction of government spending on education and infrastructure, which affected the abilities of all poor people to become socially mobile. Affirmative Action also applied to the Asian population, yet that population now have a higher rate of employment than Caucasians. The same can also be said for women, who have surpassed men since the programmes were introduced. The two races with higher unemployment than Caucasians are African Americans and Hispanics. Hispanics have no history of slavery in the US (at least of the traditional variety), yet they still have higher unemployment than Caucasians. Hispanics and African Americans live in the worst areas, and were hit hardest by the cuts in social programmes. It is not a sense of entitlement that has caused those communities to have high unemployment, but a lack of social services and adequate devices for social mobility. See what a little research can do for one's argument? A better resolution to draw is: 'Slavery is over. White trash conservatives need to get over it.'
Slavery is over. Blacks need to get over it.

Yes, slavery ended a long time ago; no one is arguing against that, but segregation legislation ended half a century ago and the results from it are still seen today. Segregation meant that black people could not go to good schools, universities, use good public services or live in affluent areas. This segregation still resonates in a more tacit, unlegislated form, in which traditionally 'black' areas are, thanks to the woefully decentralised nature of American governance, left to fester in their poverty. As I said, Affirmative Action helped this, but by no means eradicated it. You were right in saying that not even the children of former slaves are still alive, but the children and grandchildren of segregated minorities are still alive. They are still suffering from the fallout of this. But what special privileges are granted to blacks that are not afforded to non-blacks?
Slavery is over. Blacks need to get over it.

Slavery is not unique to the American continent, nor have the victims of this atrocity always been African.What is unique in the American case is the intergration of the historical injustice into the black culture, and cultural feeling of victimization and entitlement. Legal slavery (except as punishment for a crime), was abolished in the United States almost one and one-half centuries ago. Not a single former slave, or even child of a former slave, is alive today.Welfare is available to everyone, I agree, but blacks are more likely to be on welfare.
Slavery is over. Blacks need to get over it.

Though I am against compensation payments by the descendants of slave owners to the descendants of slaves; I believe that slavery has had a very long-lasting effect. It is because of slavery that African American communities are in poverty, since for a hundred years afterwards, they were treated as second class citizens, and started with far less education than freemen. Affirmative Action has helped somewhat to elevate people, but the battle is not yet over for equality among races. Also, welfare is available to everyone, not just to black people. To say otherwise is just needlessly inflammatory.
Evolution is False

Thank you for picking up my challenge.As for the 'religious reasons' part, I will not be using the bible in any of these rounds, simply pointing that some loose ends probably end with god/evolution being unstable.Charles DarwinWhat was Darwin's role on the HMS Beagle? He was not something special, like the captain, nor was he an integral part of the crew. No, he was the 'Captain's Gentleman', second only to the Captain's wife, the 'Captain's Lady'. Basically, he was almost nearly useless in terms of help on the ship. If someone with no particular high status had done the same thing as Darwin did, it would be considered as ludicrous, But there is one thing that actually made this theory popular.Darwin's father, Robert Darwin, was a doctor with high praises. Because of this, he had the ability to buy his son (Charles) an 'honorary diploma' which gave him rights to things he never could have had before, even though he had no idea how to use it. This made it so his ideas had people behind him that he had no right to have, and so he could write a book with a good amount of people believing it.Now, here's about evolution in general.Evolution Vs. ScienceEvolution is the strangest theory I have ever seen, first of all the fact that evolution states that humans could come from monkeys. Here's an example of my confusion:Monkeys cannot defeat tigers or lions, so they jump up high on trees to run from them until the lion/tiger goes away. So, why would a monkey jump up off a tree and stand straight up to begin evolution? (If it exists) The monkey would be immediately eaten by what ever predator was down there and stop all evolution towards humans!Also, humans for thousands of years have wished to fly, but how come we still can't? Not even a slight bit of change in our shoulder blades? Does consciousness stop evolution in its tracks? Why not tails or fangs? Then there is Mitochondrial Eve. Science states that something called Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) shows that every single human has an MRCA with their mother. If traced all the way back, it shows only one woman existed at her time. Now, this Eve wouldn't try to reproduce with other monkeys, because very terrible tests show that monkeys and humans cannot mate. So, since Eve cannot reproduce with a monkey, and a monkey wouldn't try to evolve without being eaten by a tiger or a lion, how does evolution even work?Also, let's take the second law of thermodynamics- Entropy. In a basic sense, everything must break down at some point. Entropy is a proven point, but is the total opposite of Evolution. So my question is, how can both Entropy, something that has been proven to be true, and Evolution, a simple theory, exist at the same time?Sorry for only one citation, I got a lot of these from family and friends.http://www.icr.org...
Evolution is False

Unfortunately I was not able to post my second argument in time since I was deprived of an Internet connection for a time, In theory, the evolutionary process is quite simple. What is needed for it, is a large enough population of individuals of the same species (i.e that are able to produce offspring) and environmental pressures that cause individuals with specific mutations to produce more offspring than those without. They are thus able to give on their mutation onto the next generation which now becomes the majority. As for there being no proof for evolution, natural history museums are full with it. If we go by your logic, then most of human history is also impossible for anyone to confirm, since no one who is alive today to go back in time, we are only able to study the sources and complete our understanding. In this case there evidence for evolution is mainly found in the fossil record. While apes may not have as strong or fast as tigers or lions they still filled a niche in the ecosystem as modern apes do today. While our ancestors may not have had the pure strength to fight off larger predators, they did however have the intelligence to use teamwork to chase them off with stones and sticks. This prevented them from becoming prime targets since the energy input needed to hunt them was simply too large. Today there are many successful species which are quite successful despite not being particularly good at fending off predators. Of course adapting and evolution are two different things. As I have stated before, in order for evolution to occur, a stable population of a species is needed since it involves a general change in genetic material. Adapting does not involve changes like that (vaccines, clothing etc.) As you have said MRCA does not disprove the existence of other women at this time, and as such does not refute the theory of evolution. The atmosphere of the earth is only a microscopic part of the universe (arguably a closed system) as such it is not a closed system itself.
Evolution is False

No need to apologize, your grammar and spelling are quite good. Ignoring my first argument, as per con did not say much about it, and I don't have much to say either. Evolution obviously takes many, many factors for evolution to actually occur. However, with how long it takes for evolutionary processes, it is almost impossible for anyone to test its proof, like how afterlife is basically impossible for you to go to and come back to tell the tale. (While it seems some claim to have done it) But with the 'being large and strong enough' do you say that humans can fight a tiger or a lion with just their hands? Even if they had rocks or sticks to throw, tigers and lions have fangs and speed. And, I am fairly sure humans had not evolved from something as powerful as gorillas (or something close to it), because there is no real proof that strong human-monkeys that could fight off a tiger ever existed. don't you think if monkey-to-human evolving organisms would continue to keep the trait of powerful fighting skills, even after they've evolved into a human? And, to speak on the third statement, there are some people who believe in evolution that think wishes affect evolution, I was simply disproving those who thought of evolution that way. Anyway, I was simply wondering why not a very small change in humans had not occurred. There has been no sign of change within humans, or at least one I have not heard of. If con tries to argue that adapting to a human's surroundings is evolution, it is not. Adapting and evolution are two different things because evolution takes millions of years, but adaption is one or two decades, such as immunities. MRCA continues to lead to something of a mitochondrial Eve. It shows that, while Eve seemed to have other women around her time, they failed to show a line for MRCA to follow. So, this suggests that there could be other women during her time, but there isn't a way to prove it as of now. http://en.wikipedia.org... what exactly do you mean by 'closed systems?'
Evolution is False

1. I am going to dismiss first part of your argument as being purely ad hominem. I simply cannot see how Darwin not being a sailor on the HMS Beagle or the position of his father rendered a theory he pioneered, but which has been verified by the majority of biologists, less valid. If you look at most of the famous scientists and doctors from before the twentieth century they where almost exclusively members of rich families. The idea of "education for everyone" is quite a new idea. This does not nullify their theories. 2. First of all, let me clarify that evolution is a process which involves a huge number of factors. Every step of the process takes thousands of years. As for your example, the process can roughly be described like this: as both the mass and the intelligence of the monkeys increased through natural selection some monkeys where able to survive without climbing trees by being large and strong enough to withstand attacks from most of the predators which occupied their new habitat. Because they now occupied a different niche than their ancestors that live in the trees they are now subjected to different environmental pressures and thus a different kind of natural selection. 3. It is estimated that the last common relative of both modern humans and gorillas, appeared roughly 4 to 8 million years ago. Thus a change significant change in bone structure would take longer than a couple of thousands of years. Besides, I do not think that wishes are actual environmental pressures that contribute to natural selection. 4. The existence of a MRCA does not imply that at one point in time only one woman existed since evolution is a process that occurs in groups rather than individuals. This graphic shows how the MRCA does not confirm the existence of one human individual at one point in time: http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems only. Evolution occurs on earth which is not a closed system as it is bombarded everyday by UV radiation, energy from the core etc. I would like to apologize for any grammatical errors, english is not my first language
Hitler was accidentally gassed in World War I twice in trench warfare. He gets a semi-pass.

https://www.history.com... Hitler inhaled hostile military gas, and developed a severe mental illness. His atrocities were a direct cause of inhalation of noxious gas. His mental illness caused by the military gas attack inhalation is to blame for near 100% of WW2 I give him a semi-pass and hope The One True God had mercy on his soul and he isn't burning in hell eternally for ruining the lives of hundreds upon hundreds and then more hundreds of people.
Professional athletes should be allowed to be in the Olympic Game

I will both construct my own case and conduct a rebuttal so that Con has the ability to respond in the final round, despite the round forfeit.Premise: PrejudiceAccording to Dictionary.com, prejudice is: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason" [1]. I believe that it is safe to say that prejudice is not a positive or desirable trait to have towards another person, as "opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason" can lead to:1) Misrepresentation of people2) Unfair treatment of people3) Inaccurate understandings of people, thus errors in judgementI trust the audience to see that all three of these potential products of prejudice are undesirable, but I will elaborate if my opponent decides to challenge this premise. However, as it stands, prejudice is undesirable.A1: Excluding professional athletes from the Olympic Games is based on prejudicedOn what rational basis can professional athletes be excluded from the Olympic Games? Con offers the reasoning that ["professional athletes shouldn't compete because] the Olympic Games was recreated for fun or peace and Pros bring attitude which makes fights". Firstly, my opponent has committed the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition by arguing that because the games were created for a certain reason, they should remain that way [2]. There needs to be a reason why "fun and peace" (which my opponent never showed to be the case with any kind of evidence) should remain. Merely stating that it was that way, therefore it should remain that way, commits the fallacy.Secondly, is it true that all Pros bring attitude which makes fights? Does every attitude of the professional athletes make fights? Not only does Con fail to provide evidence for this too (thus making it a bare assertion[3]), but to suggest that all athlete's attitudes cause fights should be patently absurd.So, on the basis of my opponent having nothing but bare assertions and appeals to tradition to give argumentation, my opponent's arguments are not based on anything rational, but rather a prejudice against professional athletes. Furthermore, since my premise reminds us that prejudice is undesirable, and my opponent's arguments are based upon prejudice, it follows that we should not accept my opponent's arguments.Finally, my own arguments suggest that not allowing professional athletes the opportunity to compete is prejudiced, since there does not appear to be a specific attribute that professional athetes have that other competitors do not have, of which should require professional athletes to be excluded from the Olympic Games. Therefroe, if we were to exclude professional athetes from the Games, then this choice would be prejudiced, and thus undesirable.References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.nizkor.org...[3] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...
pokemon sucks

"#1. I just don't like it. I have a right to my opinion"You are right. You do have an opinion. Debating, though, is about facts, which you're sorely lacking.The following Shameless Advertisement will prove that:My friend, TheDarkMuffin (who is excellent, with a rating of 2,356), recently had a debate with me over gay marriage here: http://www.debate.org...;(it is stuck at tied :,( sadly). Muff had to show that Gay Marraige shouldn't be legal, so he put asside his opinion and argued against his personal beliefs using facts.#2. The show just doesn`t stand close to the concept of the game.This is your opinion. You give no facts. Ash is a prime example. He didn`t even get 20 Pokemon yet and he get 6 badges. This realy pissed me off, because while playing the game, I would have much more difficulty doing what Ash could.Apparently, other people didn't care. It is your opinion that this is bad. You give no fact.They totally got rid of any dignity that Pokemon had.This is your opinion that this is bad. Other people disagree. You give no facts.Furthermore, I hate how Nintendo used the cartooon to target it towards kids. Instead of targeting it toward 9-13 year olds which what the game was intended too.It is your opinion that its target demographic was a bad thing. You give no facts.Too bad cause I really liked the Blue and Red games.It is your opinion that these Red/Blue games were good. You offer no facts.If it wasn't for the over commercialism and targeting torwards kids I'd probably still like it.Your opinion doesn't matter. In a debate, you have to give facts.You have given no facts.Some(not all) Pokemon fans are a real bunch of morons.Some(not all) Pokemon fans are a real bunch of morons.Some(not all) Pokemon fans are a real bunch of morons.They`ve been zombified by the Pokemon hype. Some these people are 15, 17 years old and there watchin a kids show. Does anybody see something wrong here? Not that there's anythin wrong with it, but it just seems there is so many.This is opinion and, even if true, does not detract from Pokemon. You give no facts.I surely doubt there were that many that liked TMNT.Yep. There was.#4. Pokemon is a FAD.It can't be a fad since it has been popular since 1996. Fads don't last 17 years.I have proven that Pokemon is entertainment, and therefore not a waste of time.I have proven that Pokemon is safe with the proper parenting.I have proven that people watch Pokemon and buy the product.I have proven that Pokemon being boring is an opinion and not a fact.I proved that the show being worse than the game is an opinion and that the game is still Pokemon.I proved that (some) Pokemon fans being morons is an opinion.I proved that Pokemon is not a fad.I proved that my opponent has been incapable of offering facts and has only given opinions.How I think voting should go and why:Conduct: Pro (my opponent accidentally chose Con!). My opponent forfieted. Pro: +1 point.Spelling/Grammar: Pro. Obviously. Pro: +1 point!Arguments: Pro. Con gave no facts and all opinion. Pro +3 points, baby!Sources: Pro used one to support his facts. Con had one source that gave no facts. Pro: +1 point.Winner: PRO!
pokemon sucks

#1. I just don't like it. I have a right to my opinion. #2. The show just doesn`t stand close to the concept of the game. Ash is a prime example. He didn`t even get 20 Pokemon yet and he get 6 badges. This realy pissed me off, because while playing the game, I would have much more difficulty doing what Ash could. They totally got rid of any dignity that Pokemon had. Furthermore, I hate how Nintendo used the cartooon to target it towards kids. Instead of targeting it toward 9-13 year olds which what the game was intended too. Too bad cause I really liked the Blue and Red games. If it wasn't for the over commercialism and targeting torwards kids I'd probably still like it. #3. Some(not all) Pokemon fans are a real bunch of morons. They`ve been zombified by the Pokemon hype. Some these people are 15, 17 years old and there watchin a kids show. Does anybody see something wrong here? Not that there's anythin wrong with it, but it just seems there is so many. I surely doubt there were that many that liked TMNT. #4. Pokemon is a FAD.
pokemon sucks

"Pokemon sucks because no one ever watch them"If no one watched Pokemon, the executives would not waste the money, and would cancel it. Pokemon is still on, so people obviously watch it."and the population of people but card are going down."What? Please clarify this fragment. I cannot understand what you are typing. If you mean that the amount of people that buy the cards are going down, you offer no proof.But even if card sales are going down, Pokemon still has TV shows, DVD, toys, and video games to fall back on."Kids today are going out in the wild trying to catch Pokemon and get mauled and killed by wild animals"If kids try to play with wild animals, I have some questions:1. What kind of wild animals? Bears? Wildcats? Racoons?2. Seeing as these animals live in the woods, where are the parents?3. How old are these kids? 5-year-olds are usually closely suporvised, and 8-year-olds-know by now not to try and pet bears."Pokemon is a waste of time. you could always do something productive with your life."Do movies, books, music, and debating count as wastes of time since they do nothing to better your life? You would then be a hypocrit if you listen to music or talk to friends. Also, pokemon does not impead your ability to live.
School uniforms should be required

"Also, what was the violence like before uniforms? It's not impressive that it dropped 90% if there was little bullying in the first place. " If it dropped 90%, the violence must have had some impact on the school for them to keep track. I have also taken the liberty to pull some more statistics on how much safer and less-violent schools have been with uniforms. (This took place in Long Beach California) Overall, the crime rate dropped by: 91 % School suspensions dropped by: 90 % Sex offenses were reduced by: 96 % Incidents of vandalism went down: 69 % Assaults in grades K-8 decreased by: 85 % (. http://www.statisticbrain.com...) Also, bringing back up the topic of cost. . (where you are again proven wrong) "Uniforms can cost a lot depending on what school it is" The cost of uniforms is a concern for some families, but it has been shown that families in which the children wear uniforms spend almost 80 dollars less on clothing for their children for the school year compared to those who do not have children who wear uniforms. Also, 44 percent of the families in which the children wear uniforms believe that it keeps the children more focused on school. (. http://www.ehow.com...) To conclude, Cited pros of school uniforms include decreased violence in schools and increased discipline of the students. Violence decreases because students are less likely to be picked on for their clothing, as there can be no focus on brand names. Along with this, students who are from poorer families are less likely to feel jealous or ashamed that they do not have the same clothing as those who are from wealthier families. Also, as the children wear the same things, it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to wear gang colors or other types of gang-related items. Discipline among the students increases because any tensions related to fashion or gangs have been lessened and students are more likely to be focused on the learning process.