BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

With that I shall begin. Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. But to better understand why, we must first understand what affirmative action actually is. Affirmative action is a policy or policies of governments and other institutions that are designed to actively promote and advance the status and the social and occupational participation of groups of people designated by sex, ethnicity or other shared characteristics. This means that it helps those who are otherwise discriminated against. Now let's discuss how affirmative action works in America today. The ultimate end goal of AA is to have the same percentage (if not more) of minorities in institutions of higher learning, workplaces, etc. .. than that of the populace. This means that if forty percent of the populace were white female, forty percent of our college's populace should be white female. As it is, this is not true. This means, that affirmative action should be practiced in today's colleges. With that out of the way, we are free to look at the benefits of affirmative action. Minorities increase diversity. Hopefully I don't have to explain or provide evidence for this claim. With the increase in diversity, test scores increase . http://www.nytimes.com.... So if affirmative action is practiced, our students become smarter and do better on tests. As our ex president George Bush said "Is our student's learning? " Apparently he went to an all white male private school. Not only is it beneficial, but it is empirically supported throughout american history. Our nation has always been one to accept others from different racial, sexual, or physical backgrounds. This should naturally extend into college admissions. To do otherwise would be anti-american. For these reasons, affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.
Cold and Darkness does not exist

We define cold and darkness as the opposite of heat and light. Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.
Robox is better than Minecraft

1A & 1B- The entire of Roblox has to be programmed! It's a lot easier for a few people to code in friending ability than for everyone who wants to get the best out of Roblox has to code the whole game 1C. Yes, it is an advantage. But such a tiny one, it can practically speaking be ignored. 2A. Still sounds like you're saying Roblox has a limit where Minecraft does not....... Minecraft can easily be made into custom maps, like Roblox's maps. So Roblox has no advantage here. And Minecraft is famed for having no set objective. Roblox meanwhile is hideously linear for actual players- the people who make the actual games you play can only make pretty much purely linear games. Minecraft has less of a set objective than Roblox- by default Roblox has a set objective, or else you can't play anything on it. 2B. It's great that teenagers want to learn code. They can also do it by a bunch of handy guides written to teach how to write Minecraft mods. Isn't that cool, not being utterly dependent on a particular game engine that's not even one of the big ones like ja vascript? 3A. That's cool. You can, with great effort, make a program inside Roblox to poorly resemble what Minecraft has automatically? GREAT! You can't pretend it's as noob-friendly as Minecraft building. 4A. Better than I remember it, still not great. I'd take Minecraft graphics any day. 1. You can learn to program through Minecraft, as a matter of fact I got a book to try and learn how to program, many teachers use it to teach their students actually. 2. I wasn't counting all the possible changes you could make. I was counting the number that could randomly generate. The number of possible Minecraft worlds then is 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 1.276. You can do pretty much anything you want in Minecraft too- it's just easier. 1A. Minecraft is still awfully cheap, and you can essentially do what you want. You aren't relying on someone else coding up the world you want, you can make literally whatever you want. If you'd prefer something vaguely like what you're looking for to something exactly like what you're looking for, Roblox is good, but otherwise Minecraft wins, because you can easily make whatever you want. 2A. I already covered this, it's really not a lot easier, It's barely an advantage at all, it takes all of ten seconds to look up a server's IP. Finding games you barely win at, when it comes to easy usage, to suggest Roblox wins is laughable. Ever seen a creative inventory? Minecraft is an awful lot more straightforward. It's my pleasure to join this debate! For the reasons previously mentioned though, I believe that I should win this debate thus far. Many of your arguments actually lend themselves to Minecraft- educational, of course the many opportunities where you carefully make sure we know that Roblox is incapable of certain things Minecraft can do with ease. For these reasons, I believe that Minecraft is the superior game.
Robox is better than Minecraft

I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Now, on to my rebuttals. 1A. You make this friending system sound special to Roblox. Wrong. Many servers have a way of marking certain players as friends. 1B. Again, this is common in many servers. You need something special to prove Roblox superior. 1C. At last, an actual advantage to Roblox. However, quite a tiny one. It really takes almost no time to look online for an IP. 2A. Is this an argument for or against Roblox? Saying that the game is not capable of offering mods sounds like a disadvantage to Roblox. And that the players are forced along a linear path is, in a day where gamers really appreciate open worlds, is not at all a good thing. Minecraft in fact is known for having no set objective, and that's what allows it to have such great potential for modding. Roblox has no excuse for a lack of mods. 2B. No one listens to ratings. Don't pretend that a large portion of both community's are a bunch of little kids playing other users creations. It's backed up everywhere- look up on the internet and it's pretty apparent that ratings are for the large part ignored. Building the mods that make the game great requires programming. So here, once more, Roblox has no superiority. 3A. As you say, only those who can program can make stuff that's all that creative. Minecraft definitely wins in creativity, as everyone can be creative at a certain level, while some can go the extra mile and actually program up a mod. So Minecraft has what Roblox has and extra. 4A. What I've seen of Roblox has disgustingly poor graphics. Maybe I missed some good stuff, but if what I've seen is how Roblox actually is, Roblox has terrible graphics, if you're looking for realism. Minecraft with shaders looks beautiful- and even with vanilla Minecraft, something does not have to be complex to be beautiful. Many art teachers encourage their students to make their drawings as simplistic as conceivably possible, because that's what is considered beautiful at this time. Simple is often better. Now, as to my actual arguments. 1. Minecraft has a lot more potential, which can be utilized while still having an open world game, in the form of mods. Roblox has potential, but for the most part the potential is hideously linear, which in today's age put's Minecraft at a clear advantage. 2. Because of how it's worlds are generated, there are almost 18 and a half quintillion unique worlds, which far outweighs the number of worlds available in Roblox. And each of these worlds is by no small amount massive in comparison to one of their Roblox worlds. And if you want quality over quantity, there's a bunch of great maps and servers which you can try out. Really, Minecraft world are everything Roblox worlds are, and more!
Robox is better than Minecraft

1A) Roblox has a better community than Minecraft: Roblox has all sorts of systems to help support a good community. One of those systems is a friending system. This allows player to make new friends, or meet with an existing one. This can make finding your friends game much easier.1B) Another way that the Roblox community is better is that it has a way to report players who are hacking or abusing the game. This can create a better community for all players.1C) One final way the Roblox community is better is that it is very easy to find other players' games. For minecraft, you may need to go online and find an IP for the server. On Roblox, you can just search for the game, or find it on the front page.2A) Clearing some things up: Some may say that Minecraft has many more mods than roblox. To start off clearing this up, in order to have a "mod" a game needs to have a set objective, or some kind of storyline. For minecraft, these are things such as building, surviving, and things like that. There are mods that add to these aspects of minecraft. Roblox does not have a set objective, as every single game on Roblox has a different objective, thought of by the creator of the game. Roblox cannot offer "mods" for this reason.2B) Some may say that Roblox is for little kids. This is quite obviously not true, as the rating of Roblox is T for Teen. To add to this point, if Roblox were for little kids, then how come building games requires knowledge of programming. One last reason that I think that this may be one of the dumbest things minecraft supporters can say is that Minecraft's community mostly comprises of little kids. Just think about it.3A) Creativity: Both games do require a good amount of creativity, but in this category, I think Roblox is the clear winner. Minecraft has building, which does require some amount of creativity, but roblox takes creativity to a whole new level. Minecraft has a limited selection of bricks to choose from. With roblox, you can build anything you can imagine, make any kind of brick. You can even reprogram the entire game if you want to. 4A) Graphics: This is a small category. I personally dont care about a game's graphics. What I care about is gameplay, yet I decided to put it in here. Some Minecraft fans may argue that Minecraft has better graphics. I cannot fathom why they could POSSIBLY think this. Minecraft has the most simple graphics you could possibly have. Cubes. Thats it. Cubes colored with squares. Roblox has curves, circles, and many many other shapes. Roblox has modern graphics, which are actually quite good.That is all I have to say for this opening argument. By the way, before anyone goes and says"HEY YOU PROBABLY NEVER PLAYED MINECRAFT!"Yes I have.I enjoy roblox more.
Evolution is a scientific theory not a fallacy

First of all, calling evolution the scientific theory and saying that I am con to it is saying that I am against science. I am not against science, I am for truth and against error. First I would like to discuss how evolution defines the above definitions. 1) Fallacy : a false idea, plausible however uses invalid inferences We both already know my stance on this issue. I am against evolution because I do not believe that science proves the universe to be billions of years old but rather only a few thousand, namely 6000 as far as I can tell. 2) Evolution : Descent with modification. This is possibly the most divisive issue as far as I can tell. There are several different types of evolution: elemental, the evolution of elements; stellar, the evolution of the stars; planetary, the evolution of the plantes; macro-evolution, the evoluion of species from one to another; and micro-evolution, the modification inside a species. The only observed evolution is the last, changes within a species. This happens all the time, but all the others are believed to be true. We have never observed a star or planet form; we have never seen elements change above iron, event though there are many elements above it; and we have never seen any animal inside a species become an animal outside that species. 3) Theory : A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. "Which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests." This has never been observed as far as evolution goes. Never has anyone experimented with any form of this except in modificaiton inside a kind. This is micro-evolution which I believe whole heartedly.
Evolution is a scientific theory not a fallacy

Burden of proof is equal. Pro will argue for Evolution as a scientific theory, Con will contest and argue it is a fallacy. For clarity, definitions : 1) Fallacy : a false idea, plausible however uses invalid inferences [1] 2) Evolution : Descent with modification. [2] 3) Theory : A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. [3] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...... [3] http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu......
Euthanasia - Class: Assisted Suicide

Well, it is clear you forgot to post, well it is clear I have made my point. I'll add one more argument, try and rebutt! Doctor's Roles Those who truly want to do their best for their patients by responding to a request to help end their suffering are forbidden by law from doing so. Many surveys of British doctors have shown that some already help their patients to die & risk their professional career by doing so. Doctors are also able to give pain-killers in such high doses that people die more quickly. This is known as the 'double effect' - if the intention is to relieve suffering, but the side effect is death. Popular Opinion 81% of the public think that a person suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to have medical help to die if that is what he or she wants (National Opinion Poll 2002). Rights We can now choose our partner, when to have a child, & whether to continue with an unplanned pregnancy. We have the right to accept, or refuse, medical treatment. We should have the same right to decide when & where to die. The present law is based on traditional beliefs which are no longer held by many UK citizens & should not be imposed on those who do not share them. There, try and best that. (And don't try that whole "It'll slide into chaos!!!!!!1" argument, because assisted suicide definitively requires the patients consent and help.
Euthanasia - Class: Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide, not euthanasia in general, assisted suicide is when the patient requests that the doctor leaves a deadly drug or a method of turning off their life support system in their immediate vicinity. It would not have been the doctor who killed the patient, it would have been the patient. If the patient's bearable existence is at stake, and they clearly have control of their faculties, and the condition in which they are in is incurable, then I believe they have a right to die. If the person they are asking, actively or passively kills them, it was what the person wanted, so there is nothing wrong. It is like giving them a sweet, when they request the bowl full of them. It all depends on where your moral and religious viewpoints are. But according to morals, and rights, people have that right, the right to die. And I'm pretty sure that I put 500 words, oh well.
Euthanasia - Class: Assisted Suicide

Just to be clear. I have a lot of respect for the choices of those that are suffering. What I want to argue for argument's sake: Is this a fair request to make of these professionals? Does it fundamentally change their role? Can doctors cope with such a request as it becomes part of their job description?I believe there are many instances of passive acts such as stopping iife support or stopping aggressive aid to keep someone alive when basically nature has to be left to take its course. I do not see these passive acts as assisted suicide. The doctor is not ultimately responsible for the death of the patient. With such the doctor's training allows them to move on and focus on the next case - to heal someone or give someone better quality of life.What toll and effect on a doctor if their job description is now to be told/instructed to inject someone with a lethal dose? They are now to kill someone outright? They are responsible for the death; they have intercepted nature. The term assisted is perhaps misleading no? This is an intensely private and difficult situation. There are very strong arguments for when it is the compassionate thing to do. I agree with many, many cases. However, can doctors really be asked to fight for their patients' lives and then in the very same day actively terminate someone? Loosing someone on an operating table and then to come out and have to administer a lethal dose to someone? How many scotches go down for the doctor that night?For later points perhaps we can talk about how/who/when the 'kill moment' is decided. How is the doctor assured this is in the best wishes/desired of the patient?To be bombastic - what about depression? Is it a slippery slope?
Should Shakespeare be allowed in schools

thats true but then why did they just not to long ago ban book about two male panguins raising a baby penguine, becouse it "suggested being gay is ok" but that has nothing to do with being gay. sure if shakespear used one or two scenes of sexual content that would be ok but there is A LOT of it and becouse there is so much it should be banned. maybe if there wasnt so much, so explain why the penguine book was banned but shakespear isnt!!!
Should Shakespeare be allowed in schools

Most books have violence, rape, sexual content, and more, are we supposed to ban all of those books? Are we supposed to sit back and read childrens books about how to say your abcs or ryming books like dr. sues?.... PLus most books are about the sexual content that it contains, but in shakespeares he adds it but there is a true and actual meaning behind his stores and writing and if you are not able to retain that information and you just see the sexuailty and such in it then why would you be reading it in the first place... Now if its a school reading ofcourrse you have to read it but you should ask your teacher what the heck is shakspeare saying here. I get how if you take one word out of the story it doesnt seems right, but if something is that bad then no we shouldnt be reading it, but again most stuff we read is all about the violence rape and sex and we cant run away from it if its allowed everywhere else like libraries, it's not like we arent going to see it when we are older right? Books arent rated like movies, they arent rated r pg pg13 or g... so we can't just sign a permission form saying that we can read an r rated book
Should Shakespeare be allowed in schools

were talking about whatever grade level, it should be banned. Shakespear suggests rape and things like that, he should be banned as even though some of his sexual contant is hard to understand you can still get what it means. Shaespear is not cencored and if so i dont get how becouse if you were to try to censor it it wouldnt work as he wrote in iambic pentameter and when you take a word out that ruins the way that he write his play, and the way he wrote his plays is what gives life to them!!
Should Shakespeare be allowed in schools

.. Good Luck! But I need a better understanding. .. Are we talking about Shakespeare in high schools or all the other schools like middle and elementry, because I've never heard of shakespeare in middle and grade school just high school. And yes some Shakespeare is censored because it may have a lot of innapproipiate things in his readings but we (as teenagers or older) should be able to look through that and be mature about it. Shakespeare may put violence and sexuality in his readings but we should be able to understand that this is (around some time of 1300-1700) and it was the time of the renaissance which revolved around nudity (as in michaelangelos sculpter of david) and around the middle class and pheasants, and shakespeare wrote about the women and men struggles and the love seperation between each of them. Shakespeare doesn't suggest nor shows how to do bad behaivor. When someone reads Shakespeare they are supposed to well read it to read the story, but also they should look more in depth on how Shakespeare wrote and how he put his words in to make it such a beautiful poem, even though its a story. For example if you read Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet he writes the struggle between the love between the parents son and other parents daughter whom are enemies. Yes there is fighting but it is over the families hate for eachother. And yes romeo and juliet die in the end but when you read it you should see that they both die because of a mistake of one seeing the other dead when she wasnt. We should be able to see the love connectiong they shared not the violence between the two families, thats what Shakespeare wasnt writing about, he was writing about the love and irony in this certain reading. As you can see as we read these stories in school we should be able to interpret the book the way Shakespeare wrote them and not the way that you see it as.
Should Shakespeare be allowed in schools

How can someone teach his tatics if you can't see what he does? That like saying Im going to teach you how to read without showing a book to you... Shakespeare is very educational to the reading and learning writing process. There is no point in banning shakespeare in schools just because of his content, and if schools do ban it then that would mean that they would have to ban every other book that has bad content in it, therefore if they didnt that would be hypocritical. All in all shakespeare is a good influence in schools as long as the teachers interpts what he is actually saying right and not looking at all the negatives. good job and good debate