BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a war takes place between USA and Russia is likely to win, Russia will win!

Anyone who thinks that U.S.A. can wina war against Russia is a joker and a clown. We keep saying that our military is more advanced than theirs. That's not true: Themost advanced anti-ship missile is the suburn missile and it is made by Russia. The most advanced air defece missile is the S-300, that's why the United States is scared that Russia will sell it to Iran. The United States spends about 137.s million dollars on a F-22 Rapter while Russia only spends about 35 million dollars on a Su-27. Even NASA relies on Russia to go to space. Technology aside, Russia will still win. History has shown that the Russians took on Napolean and Hitler and they emerged victorious.
human race

Well I guess that means I win! yaayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayaayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayay!
Evolution

Thank you for accepting con. My argument goes as follows...Here are my reasons.i. Darwin's Finches.ii. Evolution of Whales.iii. Common Descent.Firstly, Darwin's Finches were different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. The finches had different sized beaks. The distance between the island meant that the birds did not interbreed. Furthermore, the islands had different types of food to offer to the finches. This meant natural selection, a big part of evolution, was involved. How? The different sized beaks helped the birds of separate species eat the food the island offered. Darwin's finches helps us understand that natural selection is true. The birds separated from a common ancestor and had offspring. The offspring then had offspring and over a course of years the offspring had new beaks. This took a long time however. [http://evolution.about.com...]So what is natural selection? "the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]There are more examples of natural selection. For example...the peppered moth!During the industrial period of London, the peppered moth used to be white with little black spots, hence the name, peppered moth. Over time, London got more black smog. The birds ate lighter colored moths, they were easier to see. However...black moths weren't eaten. The moths that adapted didn't get eaten and reproduced. A big example of natural selection.What about the Deer mouse? In the woods, the deer mouse is a dark brown. It helps it blend in. However, in the Nebraska sandy hills, the deer mouse is a lighter color. It helps it blend in with the sand. The deer mouse is one example of very fast evolution. It only took a few thousand years for this to occur.[http://www.discovery.com...]Parts 2 and 3 will be in my next argument.
Evolution

I believe evolution is true. Con must prove evolution is not true or is mostly false.This is a debate about evolution. If you choose to accept, follow these rulesi. First round is acceptance.ii. If you use the bible as a source, you must have another source to back up the claim. You may NOT use two bible sources. If you ignore this rule, that claim in the argument is invalid.iii. No insulting, no trolling, no nonsense. I will not tolerate it.iv. If you forfeit one round, you lose the debate. This is so the debate remains constant and no one accepts and just forfeits (which has happened to me before). So if you accept you must debate, no forfeiture.v. Round 5 is the conclusion. No rebuttal or new arguments. Restate your OLD claims or add other notes.vi. If English is not your native language, please say so. This way, you won't get points off for spelling & grammar.
Pedestrians Should Not Have the Right of Way

D1) No Cross-Walks "that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections or any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other marking onthe surface.”No where in this definition do I see the words "right of way". All it says is that this area is marked for pedestrian crossing. Even without universal right of way, if someone runs over a pedestrian at a red light the car will be at fault. You have misjudged the vision for this debate. I am not giving cars full right of way over people, but rather taking pedestrian's unlimited right of way away. Without right of way, pedestrians can still cross the street. If the light is red then cars have NO right of way and therefore are still at a loss but pedestrians still don't have right of way.D2) Lawsuits Your first argument is irrelevant. Right of way or not, people can sue either party whenever they wish. You are assuming that hitting a person will seriously injur them, which it can, but it also doesn't have to. This argument is not about lawsuits because those will happen either way. ** Again, this is irrelevant and highlights the point of the debate. Just because someone is in a car you expect them to pay for medical bills if they hit someone. This should not be. If a car is driving along within the confines of the road, in an open space with no lights or intersections and a person stupidly walks into the road without looking and is struck you're saying the driver should be forced to pay. That is what this whole debate is about. They should NOT be forced to pay because it was in no way their fault. This is a perfect example of you trying to grant universal right of way to a pedestrian who doesn't deserve it. This also ties in my previous arguments which you misinterpreted. Drivers, due to the car, have decreased visibilty compared to pedestrians, decreased hearing and decreased maneuverability. And yet when this pedestrian is hit who has advantages over the car in everyway you expect the driver to pay. That is wrong and should not be. **"the driver has responsibility to prevent these type of accidents from occurring"That is a line taken straight from your conclusion. Now, by saying this you are implying that pedestrians do not have the responsibility to prevent these kinds of accidents when they are actually more inclined to do so because drivers are at sever disadvantages compared to the functionality of a pedestrian. I say pedestrians should have the ultimate responsibility to prevent these accidents and they should not be given unlimited protection like you've continuously tried to grant them.You have proven my point perfectly. Pedestrians should not be given unlimited right of way because they have the ability and should assume the responsibility to prevent accidents much easier than drivers can. Thus this unlimited protection known as "pedestrian right of way" must be taken away.
Pedestrians Should Not Have the Right of Way

Thank you for accepting.Maneuverability Right of way between types of transportation should be determined by a few key factors one of which being maneuverability. People on foot (pedestrians) are far more maneuverable than a car. They would have a much easier time jumping out of the way of a car than a car would have swerving away from a pedestrian. There is already a double standard on this in the world of transportation in the way of the train.For example:If a car is smashed by a train at a railroad crossing it is most likely the car's fault for being hit. Now, if we applied the current rules of right of way to this scenario the train would always be to blame because it is bigger and more powerful just as cars are bigger and more powerful than pedestrians. So why then isn't it the car's fault? Because we understand that trains have no maneuverability and have a hard time stopping. Trains can only run on their tracks just as cars (for the majority of the time) only run in the roads. In this same manner, cars should be given the right of way because they too have worse maneuverability than people and have a shorter stopping time than people. Cars run mostly within set areas (roads) in which we understand is the realm of the automobile. Since the train is given right of way in similar situations over the automobile, cars should be given the right of way over pedestrians.Awareness The awareness of drivers is severely dampened by a number of factors. Their eyesight is impeded by the car and many cars have blind spots and rely on mirrors that do not portray the world in 100% accuracy. Their hearing is impeded by the car and reduces the ability to hear the world outside the car with perfect accuracy. On the other hand, people should be aware of themselves at all times and have no such handicap to their eyesight or hearing as drivers do. We have been given the right of way to people who are functioning at 100% out doors while penalizing drivers who have handicaps to their sight and hearing. This simply does not make sense. When is a person more aware of themselves than when outside with nothing impeding their sense? In Conclusion Pedestrians are much more capable of taking care of themselves than drivers. Drivers who are in pedestrian related accidents are unduly punished because they are functioning with many handicaps while pedestrians have no such things. - Cars are less maneuverable than people. - Cars have a longer stopping time than people. - Trains are given the right of way in similar situations to car/pedestrian interactions. - Drivers' sight is handicapped while driving.- Driver's hearing is handicapped while driving.- When walking outdoors average pedestrians have no such handicaps.- Roads are designated for cars. If a car is smashed while on a train track the first thing people say is "Why were they on the tracks?" yet people seem to obtain the right of way in the road. Therefore, pedestrians should not have the right of way.
Single sex schools

No, I didn't attend any single school. I have weighed the opportunity cost of one and the other, coming to decide which one prepares me better for the real world. You have been insisting that the female school has helped YOU achieve more than you could in co educational schools. However, the world is not all bout you, all about the females. We are both women, we both know that females mature earlier than males. In fact boys and girls are a good influence on each other, engendering good behaviour and maturity – particularly as teenage girls usually exhibit greater responsibility than boys of the same age. We can actually help the males! :D Academic competition between the sexes is a spur to better performance at school. You are exactly right that we go to school to learn, not to interact with the opposite sex. In the coeducational schools, I have competed with males student, learned their logical thinking process and influenced to be better in maths and science. I didn't date any of the males when I was in college. If the individual has strong self control, then he/she would not be distracted by the opposite sex. We live and learn, if we are not open to the new things, to the rest of the world, we will be left behind. At some point in our lives males and females need to learn to work together. It's good preparation for the real world! In real world, it is not about just one gender. Even if you obtained higher academic achievement in your previous single sex school, that is not the only thing society measures you at. Co educational schools give both male and female students an opportunity to see how the other works under stress, offer more practical studies such as engineering courses and larger variety of computer technology courses. Again, it's useful experience for the real world. Merry Christmas to your family as well! I am sure you have lovely kids just like youself.:)
Single sex schools

Again I will ask , have you ever attended a single sex school? I have attended both single sex and co-ed. I was on the honor roll all 4 years at a college level, as was the majority of my school. If your grades were not kept up, you were asked to leave. There were girls in my school that were extremely good at all different subjects. I do not believe you need to go to school with the opposite sex to perform well. You are not at school to interact with the opposite sex , you are in school to learn. Here are some numbers I found on the subject "In a twenty-year Australian study of 270,000 students, Dr. Ken Rowe found that both boys and girls performed between 15 and 22 percentile points higher on standardized tests when they went to separate schools." "A 2001 British study of 2954 high schools and 979 primary schools showed that while boys at the lowest ends academically improved the most in single sex schools, nearly every girl regardless of her ability or socio-economic status performed better in single sex classrooms than co-ed ones. The study concluded that single sex education was particularly beneficial to girls. Highest achieving students in this study were girls in single sex schools followed by co-ed girls, then boys in single sex schools and finally co-ed boys. The study noted that every one of the top fifty elementary schools and top twenty high schools in Britain are single sex" "In all-girls schools, girls take over all the positions of leadership in the school whether it's drama, sports, yearbook, or debate team. Students are more likely to continue in math and science and athletics. For example, 14% major in math compared to 10% of boys and only 3% of girls in co-ed schools." I am not saying that Co-Ed is bad , but there are many advantages of single sex schools as well. As I have said I have been to both and I can say that I preferred my all girls high school to the co ed elementary school. In the all Girls school , I was able to concentrate more. I was very relaxed and more confident. I have never been unable to speak to and be comfortable around the opposite sex, if anything I developed a strong sense of who I am , and what I deserve, My self esteem was improved by attending the HS I did. My grades were wonderful and I received a top of the line education. When I went to college, I was at the top of my classes. I actually was bored as I had already read every book they assigned in my english class. I have never settled for less with any bf and I have a wonderful husband. Single sex education never affected me in a positive way. I believe there can be advantages of both co-ed and single sex schools , but to say that kids suffer at a single sex school is incorrect. I do not need men to learn. I am capable of learning in any environment. I think unless you have attended both types of schools , you can't make an accurate assessment on both sides. Merry Christmas:) Please excuse any typos , I am exhausted and have been up wrapping my daughter's presents all night :)
Single sex schools

Still I am against single sex school. (Everything has both sides, you can argue with that, but I am believe there is more advantage in co-educational systems than in single sex schools). 1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools did not in fact show academic improvement(http://scholar.lib.vt.edu...). That they are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As the report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and gender-fair instruction". These can all be present in co-educational schools. The formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the company of the other gender, in order that they may learn each others' behaviour and be better prepared for adult life. The number of subjects benefiting from single-sex discussion is so small that this could easily be organised within a co-educational system. In the States, a long-standing controversy over the Virginia Military Institute resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, in June 1996, that the institute must admit women. Have you thought about why VMI decided to take women students? Do think the female students in VMI ( and any other schools)are not taught be to as strong as the females in women's school? Thank you Kels, Merry Christmas! :)
Single sex schools

Have you ever gone to a school that was all females? If not then you really can't say you are against them. I have gone to both a school with both sexes and an all girls school. A single sex school can be very beneficial. As you all know , many times there will be a distracting male teen known as the class clown (again I went to an all girls school, obviously never an all boy school so I can only tell it from my side) who will try and show off to the girls . At my school there were no longer any distractions in class. Also we were able to learn to be strong independent females. We were taught how to have great self esteem and know that we are just as valuable as any male student. We also were able to be comfortable all the time. As teenagers it is nice to talk to your teachers and class openly about "girl" stuff as I am sure boys felt they could talk about "guy " stuff at an all guys school. It never stopped me from having guy friends and I had the same bf 10th grade until I was 19 so it hardly effected by love life. I was taught to respect myself as a women , put myself first. You say we need the opposite sex to learn , I don't think that is true at all from either side.I think it can put kids in a more comfortable environment and I am not putting down coed schools , just don't understand how anyone can say a single sex school is a bad thing.
Single sex schools

I am against single sex schools. I have always been studying in the co-education schools, and have realized that with the daily company of males, as they are totally different humans both in the was they work and how they view life in general, half of my discovering around life has evolved through the connection with the opposite sex in school. Like half of your own being develops from both your mother and father, half and half, I believe living daily lives with the opposite sex make half of yourself during developing years. My school work in general had improved due to constantly being forced different opinions and views from boys, that I understand the world a lot more from being around them. Also it is against nature to be separated from the other sex which at the end of the day, we wouldn't be living without. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Merry Christmas.:)
right+intent=morality

A logical response is not always a moral response. An illogical response is not always immoral. A mother hen attacking an inanimate object is not logical nor is it immoral. A series of clues may lead to the logical deduction that a person is guilty. Nevertheless additional unperceived clues may latter present themselves after the verdict. In this case the logical approach was the immoral approach. The primal instinct to protect oneself is not logical. Yet it is considered a morally sound behavior. Drinking alcohol, a poison, is considered just by most cultures.
right+intent=morality

A rock is an inanimate object incapable of actions. A deed is judged by its happiness - unhappiness. Since an inanimate object is incapable of deeds they must be except from morality. As for the car and drinking example. Drinking is an action within itself. In this case drinking caused greater unhappiness than happiness, thus is immoral. Driving a car is also an action. Perhaps the action of driving cars cause greater unhappiness than happiness and thus is immoral. Mentally handicapped humans are capable of deeds. Yet, like an animal lack the mental capacity to be judged for their actions. Therefore, a ward or guardian is assigned to these people. The guardian's job is protect the mentally handicapped and protect others from the handicapped. The morality of the deeds of the mentally challenged are now transferred to the guardian. So if a mentally challenged person breaks a valuable antique the accountability falls upon the guardian.
right+intent=morality

morality presupposes intent, rocks are not immoral, yet a retard can do something wrong but not be aware that its wrong and so not immoral, because he came like that ye.. explains my previus deduction, reason+intent=morality so there is no moral difference to you passing out by random chance and running some one over in your car, then to get yourself drunk and speed like a mad man and then aim for some one and simply run them over.. laughing, even when you crash you are just laughing on full display and everyone sees it... no difference there so to you, a rock can be immoral, and you can get an angry at a rock as you would the mad man driver lauging... becasue the rock is so immoral
right+intent=morality

Pro makes redundant argument. Pro's statement about demon riding a bicycle is non sequitur. Pro makes statement right + intent = morality. Yet, how does the intent matter? If a person gets hit by a car will the intent effect the outcome? No, the same amount of damage will be done regardless of intent. "an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness"not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it." utilitarianism.com "Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive." utilitarianism.com Intent is irrelevant. Happiness - unhappiness = morality http://www.utilitarianism.com...