BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Courts have the responsiblity to create racially balanced schools

Negative assertion #1 Court-orderd desgregation plans did more harm than good. 1 they didnt stop until court-oreder 2 ever since the court order happen the fights declined 3 they tried other thing and they did not work Nagtive assertion #2 courts are powerless to combat prejudice 1 needed police escorts 2 ten or twenty fight a day 3 Had to plan to escape safely Negative assertion #3 In 197 court order busing was the only strategy that could have descgregated boston. 1 education was still unfair 2 blacks still couldnt read and write 3 parents didnt have choice
Americans have a right to own guns

Guns are used in self defense whenever ones life is put in danger by another no matter what weapon they might be wielding whether it be another gun, a knife, or just a group unarmed threatening you. You seem to be suggesting that a gun is only needed if the attacker has a gun himself but what about a young woman that's in a dark parking lot by herself? A man attacks her trying to drag her away to rape her but he has no gun just his physical dominance. Are you suggesting that she wouldn't need a gun to defend herself? Suppose a complete gun ban were to be placed in effect and all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns that would put an end to all gun violence? Notice how I said "law abiding" meaning the people that are not criminals. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with a gun that does not originally belong to the user (meaning they did not purchase the weapon) so why would a criminal turn their guns in? They wouldn't! So the only people that would have the guns would be the criminals. It is simply not possible to stop people from attaining guns through illegal means. We cannot even prevent people from crossing our borders bringing drugs with them so how would we stop them from bringing guns instead if the underground market shifted that direction? You claim that guns aren't necessary but our founding fathers thought them to be a necessary right of every American. The 2nd amendment states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (1791) The purpose of this amendment was to give power to the people to ensure their own freedom. The people were to have a militia (not to be confused with the military) that had equal power to the government. Thomas Jefferson said "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people there is liberty." The 2nd amendment was to protect the people from their own government in the event it became tyrannical.
Americans have a right to own guns

I'm going to make one thing clear, I don't think Americans should be completely and totally stripped from their firearms. I think gun control is necessary, but I'm going to debate as if I don't think Americans should have rights to guns. I realize that guns are used as self defense, but against what? Other guns? If someone with a gun was trying to shoot you, any gun owner's first thought would be to shoot them in self defense. But that "self defense" wouldn't be needed if the attacker didn't have a gun himself. If you think about all the problems with guns in America. If Americans weren't allowed guns, there's a good chance the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have happened. To be honest, guns aren't necessary. Your life wouldn't be terribly affected if you didn't have guns in your home. Guns aren't good for anything other than hunting and self defense. But, like I said, self defense using guns wouldn't be necessary if no one had guns in the first place.
SHSAT's Should No Longer Proceed

For those in the audience who are not aware, the SHSAT or "Specialized High School Admissions Test" is an academic examination taken by middle-schoolers in New York City to get into the prestigious High Schools known as "Specialized High Schools". . http://en.wikipedia.org... As I am aware, there have been numerous schools added to this list over the years, but the benefit is the same: Those who score well on the test gain entry into these elite High Schools and in doing so, an incredible advantage in gaining entry into top Ivy league universities. College Admissions officials nationwide are quite familiar with these schools as they represent the best and brightest that New York has to offer. Numerous Nobel Prize winners trace their schooling back to the top three schools on this list; Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent is of the opinion that because there seem to be some discrepancies in terms of scoring and acceptance, that the test is flawed to the point that it must be discontinued. However, I find that to be a poor argument. Removing the test would create a severe backlash as these schools would continue to exist. What would my opponent have the schools do? Accept students based on proximity, which is what the usual case is in New York City? The reputation of these schools would be tarnished forever due to the influx of unqualified students zoned based on location. The schools have always existed to help the best and the brightest achieve their full potential, and they have done an amazing job at it year after year. It is not the responsibility of these schools to take under-achievers and make them into passable students. There are plenty of other schools for that. I will spend the rest of the debate arguing why the SHSATs should go on, why they MUST go on, even if they do have to be tweaked a little, but I have not seen an argument from my opponent yet as to why the SHSATs should no longer proceed.
Students be able to chew gum in class.

This will just be a light hearted practice debate for me. 1. Improves Concentration . You say students are easily distracted then proceed on saying gum will be a distraction but without any sources. In contrast my sources tell me the opposite. Source: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... 2. Improves Alertness. To further refute your statements, study shows that not only does gum help you concentrate it helps you react quicker and be more alert too. Source: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3. Memory. Chewing gum can also improve memory. And I quote "Chewing gum improves memory. Chewing gum can improve memory, say UK psychologists. They found that people who chewed throughout tests of both long-term and short-term memory produced significantly better scores than people who did not. " Source: . https://www.google.com.ph...
Students be able to chew gum in class.

Absolutely not! This outrageous "argument" is above and beyond out of the question! Students are distracted easily by even the smell of something to please their taste-buds. They are immediately distracted from their work and are carried away. Letting them chew gum is like letting students eat lunch during a math lesson. Their lack of concentration will get the best of them. It would be even more disastrous and schools in which the students are already out of control! It is sane to agree with me and if so, i know you understand this from the point of view of a teacher.
Hanging Upside Down on a Regular Basis- another KEY FOR HEALTH

"Hanging upside down can reduce some back pain temporarily." - I specifically conceded that hanging upside down can reduce some back pain for some short period of time. The topic however is that hanging upside down "ON A REGULAR BASIS" -- you've never cited anything to suggest else wise. 1) Hanging upside down can temporarily reduce back pain. 2) Hanging upside down can not reduce back pain pain over the long term. 3) Hanging upside down isn't a key to health, nor on a regular basis. The Mayo Clinic on Inversion Therapy: http://www.mayoclinic.com... "Inversion therapy is often promoted as a therapy for back pain. But there's no scientific evidence that it provides long-term pain relief." "Inversion therapy is one example of the many ways in which traction — stretching the spine — has been used in an attempt to relieve back pain. But traction is falling out of favor with many in the medical community. Well-designed studies that have evaluated traction for back pain have found no significant long-term benefit." "A potential problem with inversion therapy is that it may significantly increase blood pressure in your head. For this reason, you should not try inversion therapy if you have heart disease, high blood pressure or eye diseases, such as glaucoma, or if you are pregnant." -- Minimal effect on short term pain, that's a far cry from evidence that it promotes health or should be done on a regular basis.
Hanging Upside Down on a Regular Basis- another KEY FOR HEALTH

Hanging upside down can reduce some back pain temporarily, it isn't take seriously and shouldn't really be done. There are much better treatments and they involve just stressing your back the other way. Hanging upside down, just gives me a headache and the fact that most of the stuff you do can't be done upside down will clearly explain the "reduced stress" -- You could get that by sleeping in. Increased oxygen to your brain? That's because that's where all the blood. Aging isn't caused by aging. Hanging upside down doesn't make stuff stop sagging it just sags up for a bit. This is neither needed on a regular basis or ever, and certainly isn't a key for health.
Hanging Upside Down on a Regular Basis- another KEY FOR HEALTH

Hanging Upside Down allows blood to rush to your head. That in and of itself isn't useful. Sometimes it helps as a diagnostic test of a tilt-table test, but by and large, hanging upside down infrequently or on a regular basis is not a key for heath. You might faint, but that's about all it will do, slosh some blood around.
ROUND 2 FOR THE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT IS OUT.

MY OPPONENT DID NOT REFUTE ANY OF WHAT I SAID IN THE LAST ROUND. AND HE PRESENTS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE. THIS IS A COMPLETE ASSUMPTION. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SCHEDULE BEING OUT, BUT AS I'VE EXPLAINED, "THE" WOULD MEAN THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE TOURNAMENT. I'VE PROVEN THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT; I'VE WON ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION. BY SAYING THAT OUR TOURNAMENT IS "A" TOURNAMENT, JOHNICLE CONCEDES TO MY CASE AS HE CONCEDES THAT OUR TOURNAMENT ISN'T "THE" TOURNAMENT. SO YEAH, I WIN . .. .. PLAIN AND SIMPLE . .. .
ROUND 2 FOR THE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT IS OUT.

MY OPPONENT IS WRONG. THE RESOLUTION SAYS FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A DEBATE TOURNAMENT. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT. NOT ONLY IS THERE A DEBATE TOURNAMENT, BUT THERE ARE ALSO THESE TWO TOURNAMENTS: HANGMEN: . http://www.facebook.com... CHESS (SEE INSIDE FOR TOURNAMENTS HELD IN THE GROUP): . http://www.facebook.com... THESE TOURNAMENTS HAVE HAD MORE THAN TWO ROUNDS. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT MORE THAN ONE TOURNAMENT PROVES THE RESOLUTION FALSE.
ROUND 2 FOR THE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT IS OUT.

*sigh... this wasn't meant to be a debate BUT if you want to make a debate out of it so be it....... Debate.org is involved with a tournament being run off of facebook. Round 2 is out. Therefore "Round 2 for the facebook tournament is out." If you don't believe me check the "system updates" on the front page of the sight. It's the very top one. You said that facebook holds a lot of tournaments but there is only one DEBATE tournament. NOTE TO DEBATERS INVOLVED: April 15th is the challenge deadline for Pro (10:00pm Central Time)
diet pepsi bad for you

Before I start I would like to clear terms. bad; 1. of poor quality; inferior or defective. Diet Pepsi; drink that is from Pepsi, less in calories then Pepsi. Now that terms are cleared up I would like to make my arguments. 1) Diet Pepsi a healthy diet? Usually when you hear the word Diet Pepsi you think of a healthy drink that taste good, but if you think that you are mistaken. Most people that drink Diet Pepsi are drinking it to lose weight and be more healthy. Diet Pepsi will not do this for you. I did some research on diet soda's and how they are bad for you and I actually found out that not only is it bad for you, it says one of the things diet soda's can do to you are give you belly fat, which is the complete opposite of what the people who drink it want. Unfortunately that's not the end of it for diet soda fans. Not only can it give you belly fat it increases the chances for things like diabetes, stroke and heart disease. "In a study published in the journal Circulation in 2008, which followed 9,514 people for 9 years, drinking artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a 34% greater risk of developing the metabolic syndrome. " - Authority Nutrition. "Also another study found a 36% increased risk of metabolic syndrome and a drastically increased risk of diabetes in diet soda drinkers. " -Authority Nutrition. That doesn't sound that healthy to me. 2) Diet Pepsi and Depression What I have said already may be pretty shocking, but that's not where it ends. Diet sodas (including Diet Pepsi, which is a diet) have shown that the diet sodas can increase depression in you. "In a study of 263,925 adults aged 51-70, individuals who drank soda were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with depression over a period of 10 years. " - Authority Nutrition. Not only depression but diet sodas can increase the chance of preterm delivery for babies. "In a study of 59,334 pregnant women in Denmark, 1 serving per day of diet drinks was associated with a 38% increased risk of preterm delivery. 4 servings per day increased the risk by 78%" - Authority Nutrition. 3) Wrapping up arguments Now that you have seen all of these bad things about Diet Pepsi think about it the next time you go to get a diet Pepsi, because for me you really have to like the drink to drink one after knowing this information about it. If you want even more information about the bad things diet soda's can do to you go to the link below on my source that got the facts from. I wish the best of luck to my opponent and that we can have a thoughtful debate. . http://authoritynutrition.com...
God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong.

The agnostic viewpoint is that we don't know what to believe. Nobody can be 100% sure of whether or not a god does exist or not. We believe in science and the idea that science is the only way to solve any phenomenon that we don't know. While not probable, completely disregarding any possibility for a "supernatural" being without scientific backing as to the lack thereof should not be argued. Also according to the Oxford Dictionary natural is defined as "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:" Therefore your argument that God is considered supernatural and therefore beyond existence is not valid unless you can provide a better source for your definition. However my definition perfectly represents where in the universe or beyond people believe a God exists or existed which would be outside the physical world. (supernatural) I am not advocating that a God does exist. In fact it is unlikely. However, to completely rule this possibility out without any proof of the lack of existence is pointless. We shouldn't believe in a God nor should we disbelieve in him. No evidence has been provided for the existence of a God or a lack thereof. If a God does exist, in my opinion it would be unlikely that he directly created life or specifically created anything after his original creation.(Big Bang) Many people believe(including myself) that the big bang was the start to the universe as we know it. (I don't necessarily believe that God caused the big bang) According to Theoretical Physicist Stephan Hawking, this big bang was the start of time, and that the law of physics could have changed from before the big bang. (http://www.hawking.org.uk...) This means that there could have been a god before which caused the big bang, and then the laws of physics changed to disallow such a being. Unlimited similar possibilities such as this theoretical one I just came up with can exist. As a agnostic, we don't advocate for or against the existence of a god, but it is more logical to say that you don't know what to believe rather than completely rule out one side or the other. As an agnostic as I've stated before there is an unlimited amount of possible explanations about the start of the universe, and the continuation of the universe. However we don't rule out or unconditionally believe in any particular thing either. There is no evidence for or against a god, and therefore Agnosticism is a more logical belief than atheism. However, this is my opinion (obviously) and I look forward to further discussion on this topic. If you can provide concrete evidence against the existence of a God then you will win. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative and in this debate especially, an agnostic doesn't have proof for either side, and therefore can't and shouldn't take a side.
God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong.

God is claimed to be a supernatural being, not merely an alien being from another planet who is powerful. Supernatural means beyond nature. But nature is all of existence, which places God outside of existence, which is impossible. Therefore the concept of God is invalid, because it leads to a contradiction. Everything that exists is part of existence, and therefore is natural. I will debate any Agnostic who grants that God may exist, but no evidence has been provided.
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

the problem with my opponent's argument is that he simply cannot grasp the concept that it is wrong to hold dominion over another person's life. those ancient wonders were built by slaves that were abused and thought inhuman. The Israelites wanted to go back because they had lost faith in Moses, and they were afraid of the uncertain, back in Egypt their fate was certain, humans are afraid of the unknown. My opponent is also missing one big problem, what happens to a slave when they do something their master didn't like? Punishment, branding, being denied food, and what is to stop your "master" from hurting you when he is in a bad mood? nothing. what if you don't get work done on time? you have to stay up all night and do it, if it's not done by morning? More punishment. Not thinking for yourself? don't get me started, it is impossible for a human being to "not think" for themselves. We are human and therefore have the natural craving to be free, to have justice, it is wrong for a human being to try to completely control another, one may ask why? Because humans are so uncontrollable that when caged, they act like wild animals when they hear of bravery, of strength, they act like wild animals to break free, humans crave freedom because it is natural. my opponent's argument is mal-informed and on the basis of an Idea that was stricken down long ago.
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

"The Idea of slavery being good for you is the Idea that you would be happy with it if someone came along and took away all of your freedom."Of course I wouldn't like it. I grew up with freedom. HOWEVER, if I was born a slave and I grew up a slave and was a slave my whole life, I'd be used to it."When a man is enslaved, there is nothing good because that man's children's children's children will be enslaved, and they will never know what it is like to have real fun."Being a slave doesn't automatically mean your life will be miserable. It means that you'll spend your life engaged in difficult labor. Now, this labor would be absolutely miserable for me, but if you spend your whole life doing it, it's not as hard for you."The mere idea of enslaving another person and taking all their freedoms away, making it so that they belong to you no matter how you abuse them is wrong."Actually, there are a few benefits to being someone's slave, which I will list.My turn.Contention 1. There are some benefits to being a slave.A. You are guaranteed a place to sleep.B. You have something to eat. After all, in almost every culture, slaves were expensive to purchase. Therefore, few slave owners (if any) simply let their expensive property die on them while they're still useful.C. You don't have to think for yourself. Often it is easier to let somebody else do your thinking for you. Like it or not, people who are not used to freedom can sometimes be afraid of it and feel safer in slavery.Let's take the Biblical book of Exodus, for example. How many times did the Israelites want to go back to Egypt, where they were slaves? All the time! This is not to suggest that the Bible condones slavery; either way this is a completely different topic. I only brought up the Bible to make a point about human nature.Contention 2. Civilization has benefited greatly from SlaveryThe US Capitol was built by slaves.http://abcnews.go.com...The original Great Wall of China was built by forced laborershttp://www.qacollections.com...The Roman Colosseum was built by forced laborers as well.http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org...Why slaves? Well, you have to pay decent wages to hired workers. Putting slaves to work was that day's equivalent of hiring minimum wage Mexicans. It was cheap, and if projects grew too expensive they might've been scrapped. Also, when there's other work to be found, what free person would be willing to break his back on projects like these? You can't build something so huge if you're running low on workers.Bottom line: without forced labor there would be no Great Wall of China and no Roman Colosseum. Indeed; the wonders of the Ancient World were built because of slavery.I await my opponent's rebuttals.
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

The Idea of slavery being good is the Idea that you would be happy with it if someone came along and took away all of your freedom. When a man is enslaved, there is nothing good because that man's children's children's children will be enslaved, and they will never know what it is like to have real fun. The mere idea of enslaving another person and taking all of their freedoms away, making it so that they belong to you no matter how you abuse them is wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk... The above website lists a few reasons why slavery is wrong.
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

1. where have I said a slave owns himself, he/she doesn't. 2. I never said that either, I believe an easy life is the life of a coward, a slave owner if you will. 3. I never said this either, stop twisting my words. It is within human nature to be curious, and so we have technologies such as the computer. I do not believe in the hedonic treadmill, we are human and therefore greed can be the cause of great unhappiness. How many of those slaves could have done something bigger with their lives, like creating new technologies or contributing to the greater good? It is a crime to govern another man entirely, to deny them of freedom, to "own" them. When humans become caged against their will by another human, may the lord have mercy on the captor. If my opponent believes that slaves are happy when they are slaves, then why, may I ask him, did the slaves in America go so far as to war to be free and treated equally? It is because of the unknown, humans are naturally curious, ergo they will always fight for the new, always fight for the unfamiliar. May we all choose the right.