BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate

The thing is you keep taking flashbacks back to the 1960's, well there all over and the Civil War ended but Southern pride and heritage didn't, nor did the flag. I hoped you looked at the links because it seemed like you didn't. I'm not a racist, i've never been and will never be. but if you want to use your Confederate flag for racism like the klan its not my problem, I'm a proud owner of five Confederate flags and never said or done anything racist with them and its NOT MY PAN TO. Those videos i shared with you were from B. Thomas who was a proud black Southern students at the USCB and was told he can't own any Confederate flags because of racism. He devoted his Youtube to his purpose of saving his flags from being taking down. I have no problem attaching a Confederate flag on a pickup truck or walking into a black Church with the flag on. Its different than wearing a swastika and going into a synagogue. Ill tell you that when I was driving through Virginia two years ago I wore a CF shirt and walked into a McDonalds, Everyone else was Black and nothing happened, I was nice to them and they were nice to me like it was an ordinary shirt. The people probably seen a lot already because being in the South but they didn't care, so what could go wrong.
The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate

I understand what you mean about the KKK using the Confederate Flag but that's not what the flags about. Yes the KKK adopted the Flag as there UNOFFICIAL flag doesent change the history or meaning of any Confederate flag. Links that you should see: http://www.trainweb.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Racism: http://cdn.iofferphoto.com... http://www.micetrap.net... http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com... Pride: .bp.blogspot.com/_oNrGEbZjtPo/S-wgT9iSRcI/AAAAAAAADuo/6sKYP936hDI/s1600/1st_confederate+flag.gif http://www.flagsunlimited.com... http://amhistory.si.edu... http://home.freeuk.net... http://www.socastee.com...
The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate

On the surface, Pro appears to have good arguments, but I would like to simply chime in the following: His rebuttal has left the point of this debate. The question of this debate is if "the confederate flag should be allowed on school property to represent heritage". He has left the point of the question, and instead chosen to go on a (short) diatribe how he personally isn't racist, nor that he feels that the flag represents racism. None of that matters. The point of this debate is whether or not using symbols which are deeply divisive are appropriate in a classroom environment. The only place where a southern flag has a place in a classroom would be one that was teaching kids about racism and the terrible history of the Southern states (i.e. segregation, slavery, etc). The assertion of my opponent that the southern flag is not a racist symbol is absurd: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... http://sk.ioffer.com... http://ts3.mm.bing.net... I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. COMPLETELY. In fact, just to showcase my points from earlier I even found an image (through bing) which exemplifies my position (a perfect example of an image being worth 1,000 words): http://2.bp.blogspot.com... Don't kid yourself. It's HATRED, not HERITAGE.
The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate

I see what you mean about racism here I'm sorry to tell you but the Confederate Flag was never outlawed and i've never heard of people being jail for flying one. The flag existed since 1861 and people still fly it. Another thing was that the Nazi Party hated Jewish People and wanted them off the earth as the South wanted less taxes and government The KKK use and have a different symbol as their official flag. The second Klan stopped using the CF and used the American flag as well with their own. Nazis in America will often use the swastika or add the swastika onto the center of the CF. I believe that the Swastika should not be seen in any schools though and putting anything racist into the flag changes it meaning into racism In schools most of us are taught that the South was evil because it kept slaves, but thats not the case. explore more into the Civil War and you will learn about who was right. I sometimes where the Confederate Flag to school and I also have friends that are black and they don't care. The Confederate Flag was never racist or will ever be racist! I'm not a racist and don't take my pride into racism.
The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate

I'm Don't Think there is a heritage. I looked it up though. I believe the Confederate flag SHOULD be allowed on school property to represent pride and heritage in the students. In many schools around the country kids are being suspended for waring the Confederate flag on a tee-shirt. In USCB a Black Student Bryon Thomas had the Confederate flag on his dorm window and was forced to take it down over hatred, But Thomas contends the flag isn't a racist symbol; he says it stands for Southern pride. I think that this was a stupid case, if the flag stood for hate of the blacks why did Tom own a Confederate Flag? http://www.islandpacket.com... Another problem with the Confederate flag in our School System is that people believe that Southern history is taught wrong (and ill make another debate about that) and will get shirts and make a peaceful protest. These Shirts are from Dixie Outfitters a company that express the South. Some shirt designs include: Educate Not discriminate Southern Heritage The South Will Rise over School Censorship The South was Right The schools are wrong Proud of my Confederate ancestors ashamed of my Public School censorship I Don't believe that the these type of Shirts should be forced to be taken of a child. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Radical Christian Evangelists are bad for America

What debate are you watching? You've only won the "I can't spell" debate. You have consistently failed to prove how these people are bad for America and why protesting and the like are BAD FOR A COUNTRY OF FREE IDEAS!!! You can say "I've proven they're bad for America" as many times as you like but until you actually do it it won't make any difference. Let me address each of your "arguments" one at a time. Post #2 - "Phelps protested against soldiers and gay people." While I am saddened that a group of people would choose not to be as open and tolerant as some of our more enlightened citizens, that does NOT mean that you have discretion to label them bad for America. Would you label the hippies who were spitting at Vietnam veterans bad for America too? They were labeled bad by the mainstream at the time as well. Expressing one's free speech IS NO VICE. Post #3 - "Nothing has ever been done to Fred Phelps." Did you know that Fred Phelps was threatened with disbarrment and various other punishments for his work for African-Americans during the civil rights movement? Did you know that a firm he founded was responsible for 1/3 of the federal civil rights cases in Kansas? This is obviously a bad man. Fred Phelps received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP for his work on behalf of black clients. Yep, he is TRUE evil. I'll address your other little snippets at the bottom as well, though I believe I've already won. 1. "They harm our youth." I think it is foolhardy to believe that these... 71 people are the greatest threat to our youth today. Surely they do not outweigh drugs, guns, or Islamic extremists. 2. "They harm our image." Oh dear, because IMAGE is the most important thing worldwide. Certainly not our ridiculous national debt, or the fact that we have 225,000 troops overseas fighting in a war we should never have started. Our image is bad enough already. These, let me note again, 71 people, are not having the same detrimental effect as invading sovereign nations for weapons they don't have. 71 people with opinions you don't like are NOT bad for a free society, are NOT harming our image in an irreparable way, and Fred Phelps, while you may not appreciate some of his stances, the NAACP, which I would love to hear you call bad for America, thinks he is a force for good. I think I've proven my points, and I think that if anyone is bad for America it is people like you who want to nibble at the flanks of free speech until it is nothing more than politically correct doubletalk. The 1st Amendment is absolute. Any infringements upon it are without a doubt WORSE FOR AMERICA than any group that uses it to state messages you would like to ignore. I ask again, if you can beat that point, I will applaud you. I've clearly won this debate, and your claim that I am misconstruing everything only shows how misshapen your view of the world is.
Radical Christian Evangelists are bad for America

Well my Friend I wold like to say that your first 2 paragraphs look to what we are debating about today weather or not they are bad for America now I am saying something SHOULD be done, but not imparitive you have to see everyone will agree with me and vote me up cause i show how they are bad for America Fred Phelps notthing has ever been done to him by the FBI or anyother governmental organizataion. The atrocitys he has commited are actually him standing outside of funerals with the followers of his "church"(and i use that term loosly) and actually protest our dead soldiers as well as gay people. Yes they protest there funerals and shout at them mainly "god hates you" so sir you have misconstrued the debate these people are bad for America. 1. They Harm our youth look to Jesus Camp mentioned several time. 2. They harm our image in the world. 3. For every other argument look to my past speeches. So you have essentially lost the debate because you misconstrue everything.
Radical Christian Evangelists are bad for America

The people are not important in this debate. Period. This is a debate over whether or not we are allowed to silence opinions and ideas we don't like. Sorry "my good sir" that's not how this country works. Everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, or any other differentiating factor. I'm sorry, but you don't get to make that decision. The 1st Amendment applies to everyone, even crazy people. Or religious people. Exactly what atrocities are you exposing? Feel free to name them. And who doesn't get punished? You can't mean people like Warren Jeffs and some of the radial Christians who've had their homes blown apart by the FBI or ATF. They get the exact same punishment as anyone else, Christian or not. A man who murders an abortion doctor gets the same sentence as a husband who shoots a man for sleeping with his wife. Again, how can the state stop them? Any law that states they cannot protest or publish books, videos, put posters on the street, establish VOLUNTARY camps infringes upon, if not destroys, their right to expression and speech as they see fit. When atheistic speech was seen as Communist and ungodly, and was for all intensive purposes banned, the ACLU and other constitutionalist groups went after the laws that banned it, and eventually they were declared unconstitutional and brought down. The state cannot infringe upon free speech. Any law to that effect is a direct violation of freedom of speech and therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Constitution is the final say in the United States of America, and it is quite clear. All speech, annoying, prejudicial, racist, whatever we classify it as, is protected. There is no middle ground. I can say whatever I believe wherever, however, whenever I want at my own risk. Period.
Radical Christian Evangelists are bad for America

1. As for your First point I some what agree with you that a group speaking there mind is no bad. Now what you need to do sir is resarch Fred Phelps, he was the ran that was amongst the first to start protest against soldiers as well as against gay people. Now this is how it is bad for America when we look at Africa and Middle East and places like that we see constant violance and radical terrorist groups which most (not all) base themselvs off the Islam Religon, that rhetoric would come to America. Now we See this happenging with in Jesus Camp she is essentially telling these kidds to be predjudice. Also EVERY ONE fallowing this debate needs to check out http://www.signmovies.net... 2. Well good sir I know that what you say is true and I really only have one response for this. They havent got in any trouble for the Atrocitys that they commit but it is still bad for American and everyone that lives in America just cross apply my First point essintally. 3. Well you see sir that is the problem people are starting to here them just look at the comments. Now to stop these people will have to be through the State but these people are still bad for America.
Radical Christian Evangelists are bad for America

OK I'm going to answer the title of this, because the rest of it did not make a lot of sense to me. First, no group speaking their mind is bad for America. On the contrary, people speaking their minds and availing themselves of the rights given to us is what we NEED right now, not more apathy. Now I personally do not agree with most, if not all of the radical Christians' stances, but they are free to express them. Far too many people today do not care about the political process or their rights. They just expect them to always be their rights, and think they will always be safe. What most people don't understand is you have only the rights you can defend. The right to protest is defended BY PROTESTING. The right to free speech is defended BY SPEAKING. Exercising one's rights is the best way to become knowledgeable about them, and while these radicals may be crazy at least they care. Are they annoying? Absolutely. Are they bad for America? No. A group getting together and expressing their thoughts is NEVER bad in a democratic republic, even if the ideas are bad or unjust. At least if they are unjust the society can gather together and decide that it will ignore the crazies. It is an effective technique, especially if the people who we would like to go away think the louder they chant the more they are heard. Expression is never bad in this day and age when it seems having an opinion gets you in trouble for offending people.
Radical Christian Evangelists are bad for America

There is a show that is on A&E now this is the first time watching it, it is called Jesus camp. Now this led me to do further research which led me to a website called God Hates Gays(which is not the name of the website but i am not aloud to say because it coundts as profanity).com now this is a web site that goes totally aginst the government and also stomps the flag as well as protest the arrival of dead soldiers back from the wars. Now i am an athiest and i feel that i need more education and that is what i hope to gain from this round. I have many more fellings and opinons on this but i want to here from someone who is actually a christian or even better a radical christian who either feels the same way as the people on the web site God Hates Gays.com or as attended jesus camp. Please Educate me.
Standardized Testing

Standardized testing should continue to exist in schools. 1. It prepares students for future jobs: To land many jobs and be able to apply, (ie. lawyers, pilots etc.) standardized tests need to be taken to get such jobs. Teaching students from an early age how to handle them will help them for the future. 2. It is a non-discriminatory and fair way of testing: No racism, sexism etc. can be found with grading these kinds of tests because most of them are multiple choice and for the written sections, the graders do not know the students whom are being graded. This avoids bias and overall makes testing more fair for students to measure academic knowledge. 3. "Teaching to the test" may not be a bad thing: You may make the argument that teachers "teach to the test" and ignore crucial concepts just to cover all the test material in time. This is false, for all teachers do not know what is on such tests to prepare their students for them. They just follow the core curriculum. It helps teachers and students "focus on essential content," and "eliminates time wasting activities which prevent students from excelling." 4. It does not "narrow" curriculum: It simply just focuses on more essential topics to succeed. 5. Most parents approve of these tests: "A June-July 2013 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 75% of parents say standardized tests "are a solid measure of their children's abilities" and 69% say the tests "are a good measure of the schools' quality." 93% of parents say standardized tests "should be used to identify areas where students need extra help" and 61% say their children "take an appropriate number of standardized tests." ~This quote is self-explanatory. 6. Most students approve, and are not "overly-stressed:" Most students have a positive view towards such testing. And approximately 75% of students support the test and believe it is fair, according to a 2006 country-wide survey. 7. Non-expensive: It only costs $2-5 per student, which is a small amount compared to buying other materials for schools. ie. textbooks, computers etc. Taxes pay for this for public schools. 8. Most teachers and administrators approve of such tests: 9. Unbiased grading: Once again, since the teacher of the students are not grading the tests, bias is removed. 10. It prepares students for the future: Not only jobs, it challenges students to comply with more demanding college work. Sources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org...
Homeschooling

You asked how they will social? Of course, they will social, because homeschooling doesn't mean that homeschoolers will spend all the time at home or they will not have a chance to communicate with each other. Homeschoolers they are just ordinary children like those who attend traditional public or private schools, they also have friends, interests and hobbies. They are not isolated from society! P.S: in addition to this, socialization can also gained through life experiences that center around the family ;)
Homeschooling

I don't really think homeschooling is the best idea. If the child just stays home, how will they be social? They'd have no friends so they would feel lonely.I prefer regular school, as you get to work in teams and interact with other people. Also, some schools have game consoles. For example, my elementary school had a Wii and my school right now have a PS4. We only get to play on special occasions, but someone may not have something like that in their house. They might also not have indoor basketball courts, a smartboard, etc.
Homeschooling

To begin with, homeschooling can be very useful experience of our life, but we also should understand that homeschooling represents a major lifestyle change. When parents decide to homeschool, they will take on the duties and responsibilities of both a teacher and administrator. They also will need to implement lessons, organize field trips, coordinate activities with other parents, and make sure that they are compliant with state and local homeschool requirements. In addition to this, homeschooling has a lot of advantages. Nowadays homeschooling is developing and supported by people. In fact, many parents prefer homeschooling instead of standard education, since homeschooling has such advantages as a flexible schedule, this type of education is also very effective, it also reduces financial costs, because you do not have to pay for school and registration fees, charges for meals, etc. Parents pay more attention to their children, homeschooling allows parents to teach at a pace that is suitable for each child individually. In conclusion, I"d like to add that homeschooling provides physical, emotional freedom and bonds the family together.
Is Europe allowing its compassion to sacrifice its security by allowing refugees to stay.

I don't believe it is in any way beneficial to allow a concentration of refugees to build up in one area; this has already led to situations similar to Lesvos, and it's unfair to allow one country or one region to take the brunt of the risk with these refugees. If the UK were on the continent, we would not be content with having all the migrants with us until we registered them. I think it is an unfair burden on places like Greece; who are already in a huge financial and governmental situation, for other states to not pull their weight. Locking them where they are also puts a huge administration burden on one system; this should be done in a variety of governments to make the process more efficient and reduce the chance of error, or discrepancies being covered over. It's been great to discuss this. It's my first time on here, so I'm new to everything! A UK politics debate sounds great, soon enough we'll have a new front bench for the Opposition, which would be interesting to discuss.
Is Europe allowing its compassion to sacrifice its security by allowing refugees to stay.

Okay so I think in the context of the debate, we are both agreeing that the EU has sacrificed its security by so willingly allowing people to stay? I will addresses some of the other compromises and suggestions you have made. (1) The Notion that dividing these people up will make them less dangerous. I'm also from the UK and we have had multiple issues of young Muslim men and women going to Syria and Lybia to join IS. I would argue that if we are dealing with some of these refugees being from IS or other terrorist groups we could face a very poisonous situation. I understand how much of a long shot this is, but extremism in the UK isn't none existent and I would argue that potentially allowing these people to spread throughout Europe could be extreme damaging. The best analogy can think of is with a tree. If the tree gets an infection, for example fungal (I'm obviously not comparing these people to a fungal tree infection just hear me out) you wouldn't allow the fungus to spread throughout the tree which could in the long run cause its death. You would remove the fungus and hope that the infection hadn't spread. My solution would be to lock down the refugees that have come in to Europe illegally and investigate them all, once cleared to be in Europe through the proper channels I would me more than happy to let these people stay. However you have to remember that these people have illegally bypassed the asylum process to get into Europe quicker, while people that have stayed in their nation states and that are going through the correct procedure have not. Priority should be put on the people who have followed the rules, remained patient through an undoubtedly difficult period. (2) Risk of war, I completely agree that we should stay out for any type of ground conflict and keep boots firmly off the ground. While supporting their economies and allowing democratic groups to be set up to give the people of these nation states a voice. Really good debating with you hope to meet you again on other topics, would be great to do a right V left argument with you, which ever way you are inclined! Especially with the election of Corbyn has labour leader this Saturday.