BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a large gap of intelligence within UK schools.

Thank you for taking up the debate. I would like to comment on your system of focusing on academic subjects in grammar schools and practical subjects in comprehensive schools. I think that this may be neglecting some students aspirations. If, for example, a less academic child wanted to become a doctor, the chance to become one should not be denied to them. Your system of dividing students into academic ability instead of basing their level of education on money is excellent however the children's family is the largest influence on their life and intelligence, not education. An article from the times shows that the performance gap was 20% between rich children and poor children at the age of 7. By the age of 16 it was 43.1% showing a huge gap of intelligence and performance. So in an education system where money is not a factor and academic skill and knowledge affects the school you attend it would still be the rich children at grammar school and the poorer children at comprehensive. Also, the division of sets cannot be perfect, there are not enough resources to accommodate a less academic child in a more academic subject. If someone in a lower set decided to take law then it would be their choice and the teachers duty to teach them that subject. The lower set child has no choice but to move up a set in order to take the subject because of it's academic nature. I believe that because that person has come from a lower set they would be less academic regardless of their potential and consequently other students would be affected by them. The reason would be because of the child's background and because they were put in a lower set. Once in a lower set it is very hard to advance as pupils in the lower set generally don't behave as well and work less, so even a well behaved, hard working pupil would find it hard to proceed onto a higher set due to the obstacles they have to overcome. To conclude the students' separation creates a larger gap of intelligence and money will always have an effect on the child's education, opportunities and career. The nature of certain academic subjects means that pupils will have to move up or down sets creating mixed groups and thus the problem emerges. Thank you. The article from the times I used. http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
There is a large gap of intelligence within UK schools.

org. Unlike my opponent and myself, many members of this site are not British and will, therefore, be unfamiliar with our education system. I should like to point out that schooling, therefore, that like so many things in Britain, education is very much class-orientated here and at the age of 11, kids in the UK go to one of the following types of schools: The very rich and bright kids go to "public" schools. These are not aptly named as the child's parents have to be very rich and well-connected even to get their offspring on the waiting list for a place in one. There is a tough entrance exam to pass, as well as sky-high fees to pay. Consequently, places are only occupied by the very elite, who are easily identified by their plumby "received pronunciation" accents in later life. The dim but rich kids go to "private" schools, which are also very expensive, but the entrance exams are much, much easier to pass. Then the bright kids (the top 1-2%) from middle and working class families who cannot afford private education go to "grammar" schools, which are state funded but the entrance exams are very tough indeed. There are not many of these - I went to one (I fluked my entrance exam) but it was miles away from where I lived. Everybody else, the vast majority of children, go to "comprehensive" schools which are state funded and educate the vast majority of British youngsters. In my opinion, children should not be advantaged or disadvantaged on the basis of their parents' wealth, since they have no control over that, but rather that there should be selection purely on the basis of academic ability. I would suggest three tiers of schools: grammar, high and comprehensive, with the grammar schools focusing on academic qualifications and the comprehensive concentrating more on practical subjects. This would negate the problems my opponent has highlighted. That said, however, since the vast majority of kids presently go to comprehensive schools and the subjects are divided into "sets" (M, Y, and A) according to academic ability, there is no reason for a bright kid to be held back by a slower child - or a less academic kid to feel out of his or her depth in more accomplished company. Therefore, my opponent's argument, as it it stands, is null and void. Thank you.
There is a large gap of intelligence within UK schools.

It may be my own personal experience but I feel that there is a large gap between the smart people and those not so smart in compulsory education within the UK. In my school there is a division of pupils by intelligence into 'bands'. They are called M, A and Y going in descending order of intelligence. Being in my last year the bands have become more mixed and, as a result of this, teachers have had to try and teach at different paces, use different vocabulary and include entirely irrelevant information in certain subjects. I see this as a consequence of the education system's division of pupils. It seems from the age of seven your life can be changed depending on one seemingly unimportant test that means you spend the next nine years trying to catch up whilst going at a slower pace. I know I can't support these facts but some ex pupils came back to the school to talk to teachers about their GCSE results and some were very amazed at being able to spell "fudge" using their grades. Also my school may be considered below the national average but within the school the average grade of someone in A band is a D whereas for someone in M band it is a B. So please debate and correct me if this is a shambles of an arguement.
belief=theism

Before I present my main arguments, here are the definitions according to Merriam Webster: Belief1 a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2 something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3 conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Theismthe belief that God exists or that many gods existIn simple terms, belief is the mindset that something is true, theism is a belief that god or many gods exist.Now on to my arguments,ArgumentsMy opponent states that belief is the same thing as theism, they are not however according to the dictionary. While theism is a belief itself, there are many other beliefs that aren't related to theism in any way.Santa Clause is a fictional character which some children believe is true, the belief in Santa Clause originated from a real existing man named St. Nicholas. [1] Santa Clause is not known by a god in any major religions. So children whom believe in Santa Clause don't neccessarily see him as a god, thus is unrelated to theism. I have given one example on a belief that isn't theism, thus debunking my opponent's original argument. The burden of proof is now on my opponent to explain why belief is the same thing as theism. sourceshttp://www.stnicholascenter.org...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
belief=theism

if the first thought in your head comes from science when trying to answer my simple questions or argue and you dont feel certain in your writing in any other way then it means you do not have the ability to think for yourself, and only when you let go of the thought of sciene can you see that i am right about that. feeling a negative emotion when comprehending the words above is a confirmation that i am right belief=yes(postion on an imaginary claim, claim i can at best imagine right now) disbelief=no i dont know=maybe only 3 positions exist on any imaginary claim
Donald Trump, in fact, is and has been a great president.

Donald J Trump has been a warmongering installer of fear and corruption. Donald J Trump has done nothing but create more and more conflicts since his election evident by the Syria Bombing and the threats made towards North Korea if anything Donald J Trump has pushed the world closer to war then anything. Jabbing at Russia and China in the process it is obvious that if he does not stop his aggressive advancements towards other countries that do not support the U.S a conflict will rise. In fact these are the reasons for him being a awful president. - Conflict In Syria - Jabbing At Russia about Syria - Rising Tensions with North Korea - Jabbing at China about North Korea
Proving_a_Negative is not really a cat!!!

I accept! I will argue that I am indeed a cat. Since arguments were presented in Round 1, I choose to present arguments also. Cats are incredibly intelligent as depicted here where they operate laser guided missile launching systems. AND TEACH CHEMISTRY! :D We can't type on keyboards?? Really, explain that!Also, I cant argue well. Look at my profile information. I have not changed it since starting this debate (or even when you initially challenged it). I say "Also, I'm pretty bad at debating." Onto you!
Coke is better than pepsi

Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines throughout the world.[1] It is produced by The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, and is often referred to simply as Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States since March 27, 1944). Originally intended as a patent medicine when it was invented in the late 19th century by John Pemberton, Coca-Cola was bought out by businessman Asa Griggs Candler, whose marketing tactics led Coke to its dominance of the world soft-drink market throughout the 20th century. The company produces concentrate, which is then sold to licensed Coca-Cola bottlers throughout the world. The bottlers, who hold territorially exclusive contracts with the company, produce finished product in cans and bottles from the concentrate in combination with filtered water and sweeteners. The bottlers then sell, distribute and merchandise Coca-Cola to retail stores and vending machines. The Coca-Cola Company also sells concentrate for soda fountains to major restaurants and food service distributors. The Coca-Cola Company has, on occasion, introduced other cola drinks under the Coke brand name. The most common of these is Diet Coke, with others including Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola, Diet Coke Caffeine-Free, Coca-Cola Cherry, Coca-Cola Zero, Coca-Cola Vanilla, and special versions with lemon, lime or coffee. In 2013, Coke products could be found in over 200 countries worldwide, with consumers downing more than 1.8 billion company beverage servings each day.[2] Based on Interbrand's best global brand study of 2011, Coca-Cola was the world's most valuable brand.[3]
Coke is better than pepsi

Pepsi has won a small skirmish in the decades-long Cola War. With return of nearly 19% this year, PepsiCo's returns have bested Coca-Cola's 9% year-to-date performance. Then on Thursday it was announced that restaurant chain Buffalo Wild Wings has switched drink suppliers from Coca-Cola to Pepsi, hoping to benefit from the latters' ties with the National Football League and Major League Baseball.
The World Is Better Without Religion

It is a shame that my opponent forfeited the round because I would have liked to hear his arguments. If religion didn't exist, people would fight over other things such as land, money, sex. Eliminating religion would not eliminate wars. If you think religion causes all the problems in the world, look at notable atheists such as Stalin, and Mao, who killed millions of people in the name of Communism which is an atheistic belief system. Sure Christianity does not have a clean slate but making the claim that a world of atheists would be a better world is just a faulty claim to make. Look at mother Teresa A vast majority of charity organizations are religious and mostly Christian, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Wordlvision, and although it isn't anymore, YMCA started out that way. Also, the ivy league schools started out as Christian institutions. Those who give the most to Charity are generally Christian. They give the most not only to religious but also to secular causes. [1] I would like to know my opponent's view on absolute truth and morality. Is morality determined by society? I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses. 1 http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com...
The World Is Better Without Religion

I believe the world would be better without religion. When I am asked of my religion I prefer to say nothing, but if have to classify it, I would say Agnostic. Agnostic, in my opinion - being skeptical but not truely knowing if there is or is not a god. Some religions shoot for peace. Which I respect that. But, however, since there are so many different religions, it causes war, the opposite of peace which is what that religion was aiming for in the first place. So I ask you - would the world be better off without religion? I believe so. This debate is open to anyone of any religion. And I wish my opponent best of luck. Round 1 - What you beive in if anything at all. I have already stated what I believe above. Round 2 - Questioning and Contrasting opponent about Round 1, which is what they believe in. Round 3 - Response to Round 2 and thoughts about the main topic. Round 4 - Response to each of our opinions on the main topic. *We are not here to criticize each other's religion. If you wish to do so, I will end this debate.
God does not "exist".

My opponent has forfeited. She even made the max. argument length to only 1000 characters. Oh well. My initial arguments for the non-existence of god was based on the epicurean paradox. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - http://en.wikipedia.org... And this show's how the bible's depiction of god is impossible. An omnipotent and omni-benevolent god cannot exist. Therefore, the biblical god does not exist. But you can always say god was not willing but able to prevent evil because he wished to give his creation free will. But the contradiction is that he sends those who sin to hell. This is major contradiction as trapping a person in any confinement robs the free will of that person. So the paradox still stands as valid. The biblical god is paradoxical and cannot exist.
God does not "exist".

1. I will not 'prove' anything. I have no obligations to do so, for such a thing is impossible. So I decline your challenge, instead I will challenge you something else. I will debate against you and ARGUE that God does not exist and I challenge you to do the opposite and argue that he DOES exist. Then this debate can finally be a fair debate, with at least a decent chance for either of us to win. 2. I am not an atheist but oh well, I will debate this topic as a semi agnostic, semi atheistic, semi solipsistic free thinking spiritual believer. 3. I find debates like "God exists" and "life is intelligently design" to be quite overdone and getting old. But I will however give this debate an exception and please for the love of mother nature do NOT get this debate on the front page. We already have enough creationist debates as it is. 4. I will assume this to be an acceptance round and that we will be arguing about the existence of the BIBLICAL god. Please do begin in the next round.
The Black Lives Matter movement and organization does more harm than good.

So my opponent talked a bit about sources, before I start I just wanted to say that I won't call bias on any sources used in this debate. Moving on to the actual topic at hand. OVERVIEW/RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSISContrary to what my opponent says, this debate is not just about what the intentions of the BLM organization are. When judging the good or harm of an organization, we must also look at the actual impact this organization has. Even still, I believe the intentions of the BLM organization are also bad. With that in mind, let's go to my argument. THE PRO CONTENTIONC1: Black Lives Matter is harmful to society. Subpoint A - The movement's intention disregards the lives of many and promotes racial superiority. Some of the original intent of the BLM organization was good, but the movement has evolved into cop hating and black superiority. Black Lives Matter protesters also have been known to encourage and parade the death of cops on multiple occasions. After the death of Eric Garner, protesters lined the streets of New York City with chants of: “What do we want?” “Dead Cops!” “When do we want them?” “Now!” On another occasion, when a black Harlem cop, Randolph Holder, was murdered in cold blood, BLM supporters disgustingly cheered the news outside of a Harlem hospital. When you see this, it makes sense that the mascot of Black Lives Matter, Assata Shakur, who is repeatedly spoken as an inspiration by BLM founders and activists, is actually on the FBI's Most Wanted list. The intention of modern BLM is to celebrate the death and suffering of not only non-blacks, but just whoever they dislike. Subpoint B - The organization has killed and injured many. Black Lives Matter sure acts on these horrible thoughts, doing horrible things that end up hurting society. As an example, "In response to the acquittal and total exoneration of law enforcement office Darren Wilson, who was in an altercation with Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, ending tragically in Brown’s death, movement members set the city on fire. Innocent people had their businesses trashed and looted while the peaceful people of Missouri (black and white alike) woke up to their city in shambles and literally on fire."(The Daily Wire, http://www.dailywire.com...)If you want a more relevant example, just look at the very recent Dallas cop shootings. Towards the end of a protest in response to police brutality, a sniper ambush killed 5 police officers and injured 7 more - the organization fought violence with even worse violence. This violence has gotten so extreme that even Barack Obama has stepped in. “Whenever those of us who are concerned about fairness in the criminal justice system attack police officers, you are doing a disservice to the cause,” Obama said during a press conference in Spain on his way home from a NATO summit in Poland.The BLM organization is detrimental to American society in not only how they think but also how they act upon these thoughts, and that is why you should vote Pro!
The Black Lives Matter movement and organization does more harm than good.

I don't believe in almost any aspect of the way many people on here us it, I don't believe I should have to provide "sources" as Republicans are always going to call my source "liberal bias" and I'll turn around and do the same thing if they use Fox News etc as their source. On this topic, while I believe some of the individual actions of SOME of the attending BLM events hurts their cause, I believe the INTENTION is good in general and many accomplishment have been made by the organization
The Black Lives Matter movement and organization does more harm than good.

Hey everyone! Some rules: -First round is acceptance only. -No semantics or ad hominem attacks. -Use actual evidence and cite sources please. -Have fun! A couple other things about my speeches: -If anyone doesn't know, a contention is another word for point or assertion, I will be using this word in my speeches. Also, c means contention as well (like if I say C1 it means Contention 1). -Also, a criterion (also called standard) is something which the judge chooses who wins the debate by, it is part of framework. For example, if the criterion is health (and both sides accept this criterion), then all arguments that don't involve health are invalid, because the judge, or in this case the voters, are only focusing on health. -Lastly, if, at any time, I say "we", "our", or similar words in my speech, it means my team, which in this case is just myself (sorry, used to typing out cases for a team of multiple people).
Should negative political ads be banned

My opponent drops all of my attacks on his arguments, extend them all. He claims that SCOTUS has limits on freedom of speech. Unfortunately, I've already shown what those limits were and he failed to prove that attack ads constituted a "clear and present" danger, so I'll just extend that and urge a vote of negation. He misunderstands my second point, and moreover his response reinforces my third point. There is no objective way to determine what is or isnt a direct attack, and more importantly TURN: banning direct attacks on an opponents policies is the best way to ifnorm voters of their drawbacks. I have no idea what he means to say by his response to my third point. Campaigns, not corporations, run ads although corporations d donate to campaigns. Finance reform is a different issue entirely. He dropped my attacks and didnt respond properly to my points.
Should negative political ads be banned

I will refute cons arguments Con 1: Unconstitutional The attack ads are not unconstitutional because the supreme court has but limits to the first amendment and the limits include attack ads. Con 2: No objective metric Negative ads are one that directly attack other candidates. Hope that is clear now Con 3: Undermines Political Process The corporations provide the money for these political ads and the banning of these ads are the same as banning corporations from the elections
The Titanic Conspiracy Theory

I probably should have referenced some sources to my opponent regarding the conspiracy. There are a few YouTube documentaries on the subject and I will place one on the subject. I will say that this is quite interesting when you first hear, but I believe it is torn apart once some real research is done, and I would rightly call myself a Titanic buff. Phyiscal DifferencesThe biggest hole in this conspiracy. It is fair to call the Olympic and Titanic sister ships. The White Star Line had created this new Olympic class to take on Cunard's ocean liners. However, the ships are not entirely identical. In this case, I refer to the A-deck promenade deck on both ships. A-deck (the deck just under the boat deck) was designed very open on Olympic where people could enjoying strolling on the deck or sitting in deck chairs. The hole in the conspiracy is that changes were made to the Titanic, which has a promenade with enclosed smaller windows running roughly through the first half of A-deck. Here's the Titanic: Everybody recognize the difference of the windows? Now here's the Olympic: Focus on A-deck. All windows are very open. This design was not as popular because water could spray onto the deck when it's stormy. The designers of the Olympic class ships decided to update Titanic with enclosed forward windows to avoid the spray of the water. A new feature on the Titanic was the first-class Cafe Parisien. There was now Cafe Parisien on the Olympic until after the sinking. The cafe was on B-deck in the promenade [1]: As we can see, there were some big differences. Insurance SucksThe Titanic was actually underinsured by several million dollars: "Little did they know when this sheet of paper was signed off that the worst case scenario would come true just 15 days later. The original insurance certificate covering the ‘total loss’ of the Titanic for $5million (£3.1million) was revealed today, showing the cover was taken out two weeks before the ship sank in April 1912. And a handwritten amendment at the foot of the policy suggested the ship’s owners only insured the vessel for her sea trials and delivery journey from Belfast to Southampton as an afterthought. " [2] 1. Lynch, Donald, Ken Marschall, and Robert D. Ballard. Titanic: An Illustrated History. New York: Hyperion, 1992. Print.2. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...