BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should be co-ed

I will assume that "co-ed" schools do not include gender-segregated schools where both genders attend. I will assume that a "co-ed" school could have a teacher or professor of any gender. I will assume that the Pro is asserting that co-ed schooling should be chosen in every society that exists today. I will assume that the question is personal and individual as well as societal. I. As the Pro concedes, gender-segregated classrooms result in higher test scores. It must be acknowledged that the educational advantages of gender segregation is a hotly contested topic, with claims to fact on both sides of the issue. Within that debate, it should be sufficient to note that there is a significant ideological element. Ideologies are not susceptible to evidence; they are generally pseudo-scientific in that their adherents simply shop for information that confirms their ideological biases. One cannot ignore the powerful ideological drive to plug evidence into the story that gender segregation is damaging or that gender segregation is helpful. I believe this state of affairs advises against a universal conclusion and that, on a social level, it is important that localities be able to experiment and more fully develop an answer to this question. Also, the evidence that individuals who have certain characteristics may benefit from gender-segregated schooling (see GAO studies) is enough for me to conclude that, on an individual basis, there are times when gender-segregated schooling may be appropriate. I believe that, for the "person" who has motives and acts with intent, it is very straightforward that some schools may be gender-segregated. If there is a social or individual reason for gender-segregated schools to exist, then a personal motivation to attend such a school, especially in a society where the decision of a few such people does not greatly alter the prevailing co-ed approach, should not be written off as incorrect. The person's freedom to choose is what is "correct." II. I believe that it is inevitable that Islamic and similar cultures will progress toward gender equality. The question of co-ed or gender-segregated education does not need to consider whether co-ed education would accelerate equality. What I am most concerned with is the plight of girls and women in societies where they might not have a education (or might have less of it) except through gender segregation, such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. Some cultures are exploring gender segregation to address violence against women as educational access expands. Correct or not, this is experimentation towards equality. Furthermore, the result of education today may be to undermine inequality and may have a greater effect than opposition to gender segregation today. Conclusion. I believe that it is important to allow for experimentation, individual differences, personal choice, and pragmatism--accordingly, I conclude that gender segregation of schools is sometimes permissible.
The existence of the extinct shark Carcharodon Megalodon

1. The 5% argument is irrelevant. Scientists have agreed that the Megalodon was confined to warm, coastal waters where food was plentiful. Those areas have been discovered and most of them completely mapped. That means that the shark would have been spotted by now. 2. The photos of whales are all proved to be hoaxes, just a quick research attempt will show you that. 3. That video used in discovery's fake documentary "Megalodon: the monster shark lives" is fake, along with any other "evidence" in that show as proved shortly after the show's airing. 4. The tooth, found in 1872, 150 years ago, using a method dependent on hundreds of variables. The Megalodon had thousands of teeth wash up on shore in its time, and if the Megalodon has been living in the oceans for 10,000 years then more teeth certainly would have turned up. Sources: http://www.fossilguy.com... http://www.elasmo-research.org...
The existence of the extinct shark Carcharodon Megalodon

Many people do believe the megaldon exists and it very well could. The reasons for this are that a.) We have only explored less then 5 percent of our oceans b.) There are videos and pictures of whales with a good portion of there body bitten off c.) This video also watch the entire video other wise you may not see it. Also the megaladon could exist because of global warming, which caused the water to rise which caused whales to migrate in warmer waters, which is the sharks main food source. Also marine biologists found a tooth to a megaladon that carbon dated to only 3,000 years ago (which was during the rule of Egypt's empire). The megalodon was said to have gone extinct 7million years ago.
The word "racism" has become a misused label in the United States.

That is very kind and respectful of you sir, I truly do humbly thank you for your consideration of what I perceive is logical and reasonable to be truth. I actually do perceive you as a very wise man, which is why I said you are not arrogant. I am going to be arguing against "white pride" with the words of Jesus Christ. But to be fair, I will not show him the same decorum as I am showing you. I am "eager" to articulate my ego and I believe that my "white pride" opponent is a perfect person to be condescending towards. Again thank you very much for this debate.
The word "racism" has become a misused label in the United States.

1. Police Brutality: There are transcripts of the police in Fergusen using demeaning language describing Black people. Even I agree with you that stereotypes do occur, a fact I believe should be corrected with reason and logic, but those stereotypes always brings a racist mentality as time progresses confirming the subjective truth of those stereotypes which does cause racism. The South does make more stereotypical arguments which tend to often lead to racist comments and even actions. I have seen videos first hand where a black person didn't have to die if those stereotypes didn't exist. It's when we deny the effect of stereotypes in the human psyche that we become ignorant of our racism. 2. Muslim Ban: We treat the Jewish people as a religious sect and a race of people. You are considered racist if you speak against the Jewish people like any other race. We have enveloped all of the Muslims into one group of people just like we do when we talk about all races. You have admitted yourself that only a relatively handful of Muslims are terrorists, but the Muslim ban affects a great deal of them that haven't been proven to be terrorists. Even when you look at the countries that the Muslim ban has occurred, I would postulate that only an extremely small percentage amount from each country are actually terrorists thus you are sending back somebody to Saudi Arabia because simply they are from Saudi Arabia. That is a racist gesture, point effect. Muslims that are from countries not on the list are not being sent back. This is proof of racism where one person from Saudi Arabia is being sent back literally because of the country they are from. But honestly, we really have made Muslims into a race just like we did with Jewish people. I will grant that we haven't labeled a prejudicial concept for having the mentality of being against another religious sect, but to me, it's not any different from racism.
Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the NFL.

My opponent completely fell short of his BoP. He never connected his statements to actual arguments. He had evidence, but never connected it to a line of reasoning where that evidence would make Adrian Peterson the best running back in the league. He also forefeited nearly every round of the debate, which I will take to mean that he has conceded defeat. Now, I will hand the reigns over to voters, as I feel my duty to show that Pro didn't meet his BoP is clear and apparent.
Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the NFL.

Preface: I would just like to open by saying hello to my opponent, to the viewers, and to the voters, as well as thanks to my opponent for issuing the open challenge of this debate. Introduction: My position in this debate will be against Pro's position, and more specifically I will be arguing that Adrian Peterson is not definitively the best running back (RB) in the league, by using at least one of the following methods: 1) Disproving Pro's arguments to the contrary, 2) Proving that it is impossible to objectively know if he is or is not the best RB in the league, and 3) proving that there is a better RB in the league. If I accomplish any of those goals, I will have proven my position above that of the opponent, and it is my belief that I should thus win the debate. A. Rebuttal of Pro's 1st Reason: Pro's first argument states Adrian Peterson's statistics in a single football game on December 17th(from 2007?), then lists accomplishments he recieved, namely his inclusion in the 2008 Pro Bowl and the award of NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. It does NOT compare these statistics and awards to other players in the NFL, nor does it explain why these statistics and awards prove that he is the best Running Back in the NFL. I therefore fail to recognize this argument as a valid argument, and believe that Pro failed to meet his burden of proof with this argument. B. Rebuttal of Pro's 2nd Reason: Pro's second argument lists more statistics and awards that are all fairly dated (from 2007-2008, nearly 6 years ago.). He still fails to prove that these statistics are indeed relevant in this debate. Quoting numbers and awards is fine - but since he does not even attempt to show WHY these statistics are meaningful, I still do not believe he has fulfilled his BoP. C. Rebuttal of Pro's 3rd Reason: Like the rest of Pro's arguments, this reason fails to show that these are meaningful statistics(or in this case, records.) I am forced to sound like a broken record here, because all of the arguments are glaringly similar in that there seems to be no particular reason why they are included in this debate. Furthermore, they don't even show that he has any recent accomplishments I am running out of time to post this (5 minutes left), so I will just do a quick summary of my rebuttals. 1. Pro has not proven that any of his stated facts are relevant to this debate. He has used extremely little comparative statistics to other players, and completely avoided giving reasons as to why any of his reasons made AP the greateast RB in the NFL. 2. Most if not all of Pro's information is from 2007-2008, data which does not prove that he still holds the talent that he did in 2007-2008. In my next post, I will hopefully have time to address not only why Pro's argument is baseless but also other players in the league that may be better than him or the subjectivity of any NFL player comparison that makes it impossible to accurately say one player is the best. To my opponent - good luck. To everyone else - Vote Con. :) ~!SBG
Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the NFL.

Adrian Peterson is the best because of many reasons. 1.On December 17, Peterson played in his first Monday Night Football game, where he had 78 yards rushing, 17 yards receiving and 2 TDs. The next day he was named as the starting running back for the 2008 NFC Pro Bowl team. On January 2, he was named The Associated Press NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. 2.On February 10, 2008, Peterson won the 2008 NFL Pro Bowl MVP award with 16 carries for 129 yards rushing along with 2 TDs. The 129 yards rushing was the 2nd most in Pro Bowl history. He was the first rookie since Marshall Faulk in 1994 to win the Pro Bowl MVP award. Peterson and Faulk are currently the only NFL players to win both the NFL Pro Bowl MVP and Rookie of the Year awards in the same year. Peterson finished in second place in rushing yards (1341) in the 2007 season behind LaDainian Tomlinson, who finished with 1474 rushing yards. 3.He has broken 9 NFL records including Most yards in a single game, most 60 yard+ TDs in a career, most 50 yard+ runs in a season, most rushing yards in a calendar month and most rushing yards in an eight game period.
Prevention is better than cure

"Prevention is definitely millions of times better than cure." Oh. Where'd you get that number from? "There are some incurable diseases like Ebola, Alzheimer's disease and stroke." Just because a cure has not been created does not mean we will eventually create one. Scientists have found a way to cure Ebola in monkeys and are currently working on treating humans. Researchers at Yale School of Medicine announced they discovered a drug that reverses the effects of Alzheimer's disease in mice. "Falling ill is not a sin, but if you don't prevent them, then it is a sin." One method of preventing a disease is researching to find a vaccine for it. I also believe you mean "try to prevent them", because the doctors who are "trying" to prevent/cure Ebola aren't preventing it from spreading... but are they sinning? "Little correct steps" I agree. The vast majority of diseases are avoidable, but many are hereditary or are caused by other factors which they cannot control or prevent. However, genetic conditions can often be cured. In West Africa, Ebola spreads rapidly due to poor hygiene. This lack of hygiene is caused by their lack of education and their religious customs. While education is important, I argue that defying their religious customs would be a violation of their rights, and that it would be simpler to find a cure and administer it when needed than to change their way of living.
Prevention is better than cure

No rebuttals. You have three hours to post your arguments if you accept this debate. Disease. Prevention is definitely millions of times better than cure. There are some incurable diseases like Ebola, Alzheimer's disease and stroke. Ebola is currently happening in Africa. It is so dangerous that humans are not even willing to help those victims. Falling ill is not a sin, but if you don't prevent them, then it is a sin. It is something like self-abuse for a human to fall ill on purpose. This is not good. Some disease are incurable,but they are preventable. All you need is some little correct steps to avoid them. Forgetfulness. It can be warded through playing card games.
Egotistic rap battle.

I had a feeling something like this would happen when I saw your first post was Tech N9ne. You're posting great, slightly out of the mainstream guys, and here I am feeling like a poser who only listens to top 40. Anyway, this round I've got Thank You by Jay-Z. WHat I love about this song is the understated braggadocio. Listening to Twista's beat and vocal cadence, you're primed, you're pumped, and every boast he gives is going to have an inflated effect. (Not hating on any part of that song, exceptionally well constructed, especially the second verse) In contrast, Jay goes with a lazy, brassy, five note horn beat that makes everything he says sound that much cockier. He knows he's better than you, and he doesn't even need to prove it with superior technical skills. That's not to say there's no skill in the delivery, however. The wordplay and inside jokes ("That is no reason to treat me like I'm somehow from outta heaven" [Okay, J-HOVA]) are especially effective on this track, because the lyrics are emphasized rather than the beat. http://www.youtube.com...
Egotistic rap battle.

Oh, no, I wasn't criticizing you or anything. More getting on myself for not listening to enough stuff that doesn't sell a millions of copies. It's mostly because I listen to what I hear about, and when everyone goes nuts when an album drops, I'll at least give it a chance. I try to stick with quality stuff though. None of this Tyga bull. Anyway, pretty standard here, not much to say, except this is off Big L's first posthumous album. He runs Harlem, and as the popularity of the album shows, he doesn't even need to be alive to do it. http://www.youtube.com...
Egotistic rap battle.

I'd post snoop and Jay-Z if i though they were worth the top five of egotistic raps. I don't care if mainstream or not. I just care that the rap is epic and Would even back slowmo homo Lil Wayne if I thought he was decent. My opinion isn't based on the fact ost mainstream rappers suck (thay don't) but the select few that do happen to, unfotunately, be rather overrated (apart from eminem, he is the only mainstream rapper I feel is decent). To prove my love of mainstream rappers being included, I posted this one.http://www.youtube.com...;
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Even if it is not the legal right of a student to pick not to have religion forced on them, it is still a great injustice to do so. Forced prayer in school whether private or public is a violation of a person's natural right and is thus unjust. /// My opponent brings up natural rights here, I wish that he would not have done that because this is a debate about legal right. It is debatable whether or not natural rights even truly exist and that is a topic for another debate. As it stands a private school forcing students to pray, or pretend to pray, in order to remain in attendance there is not illegal because the first amendment only applies to governmental actions and that is all that matters for this debate. ~ ///The lemon test is to be applied in a situation where a law would be made regarding religion. It is not applied in a case of government funding for a religion, thus my opponents attack there is void. /// This is incorrect, in the above citation [4] it states that the Lemon Test came about because of the Supreme Court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. This case was about whether or not parochial schools receiving governmental aid was unconstitutional. The decision was that this aid was unconstitutional and was stopped. It also states in source [4] that the Lemon Test applies to any action taken by the government, not just lawmaking. Therefore since parochial schools do not receive funding from the government the government has no say, for the most part, in how that school operates.
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

Even if it is not the legal right of a student to pick not to have religion forced on them, it is still a great injustice to do so. Forced prayer in school whether private or public is a violation of a person's natural right and is thus unjust. My opponent gave the example of the "Lemon test". The 3 prongs that he gives are correct, but he is incorrect in his application of the lemon test. The lemon test is to be applied in a situation where a law would be made regarding religion. It is not applied in a case of government funding for a religion, thus my opponents attack there is void. Thank you
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///My opponent said that outlawing forced prayer violates the right of private institutions. I refute this by saying this- even private institutions have non-secular text books provided by the federal government. /// It is true that it is possible for private institutions to receive funding from the government including secular textbooks. A private institution is only eligible to receive this government aid if it passes something that is called the Lemon Test [4]. This test has three criteria that a private institution must pass in order to receive this aid. These criteria are: *The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; *The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; *The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. In the Supreme Court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman [4] the court ruled that parochial, or religious and private, schools receiving government aid were no longer able to do so because the government was found to be in violation of the first amendment. Therefore your argument that the government funds these schools so it should have some say is invalid because the government does not fund these schools. ~ ///. .. imposing religion on students, who may be there not by there choice but by their parents choice, is illegal and violates the first amendment. /// This is a misleading statement, the first amendment only applies to the government's actions, not a parent's right to send their child to private school. As a minor an individual does not get to exercise many rights given to adults. They are still allowed to choose any religion that they want but they do not not necessarily have the choice to not have other religions forced on them via their parents. This is unfortunate, but true. ~ [4] . http://tinyurl.com...
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

Now to my arguments. My opponent said that outlawing forced prayer violates the right of private institutions. I refute this by saying this- even private institutions have non-secular text books provided by the federal government. This is a form of federal funding which means that the federal government ought to have some degree of control over this schools activities. Also as I have shown even private schools are in a way still somewhat a government institution, so imposing religion on students, who may be there not by there choice but by their parents choice, is illegal and violates the first amendment. Thank you
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

Due to the confusion I accept my opponent's new interpretation of the resolution to be: "To clarify, my intent [for the resolution] was forced prayer in school or a set time for prayer in schools [should be legal]." Here is my new argument: If forced prayer in schools or a set time for prayer in schools is outlawed then the rights of private schools, especially those funded and run by religious institutions, to have some form of organized prayer. Since the first amendment in regards to religion only applies to actions taken by the government it does not have the power to regulate private schools in regards to religion as they are by definition private organizations. ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///by making a law that forces prayer or sets a preset time for prayer congress is making a law in respect to an established religion, thus violating this clause/// If congress made a law that stated that prayer was required in school it would violate the establishment clause, the same can not be said of a private institution instituting a forced prayer. ///Setting aside a time for prayer does violate the free exercise clause as it imposes religion on the nonreligious./// Imposing religion on the non-religious is not against the law if done by a private institution. ~~~~~~ Defense ~~~~~~ ///My opponent said they are not advocating the institution of prayer. By going pro (again I apologize for poor phrasing in the res.) they are advocating prayer in school./// This is incorrect, I am advocating that instituting prayer in school should not be illegal, not that I want prayer in school. I await my opponent's response.