BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
sex education

Yes, I think it should be. 1) Sexual immorality (not just from a religious standpoint, but rape, pedophilia, and things like that) is quite rampant nowadays. Sex sells, and practically everyone is buying. It's in music, it's all over media, it's on billboards, it's in advertisements everywhere. The only way in which you can keep your child sheltered from sex/sexuality immorality is to keep them from modern technology from the most part and to keep them from going out in most public places. Oh yes, and, if you're a religious person, to keep them out of many modern church services. 2) At some point, they're going to learn that their body does sexual things. I know people who have figured out self-sexual activity at the age of 4 or 5. They need to know what's going on. 3) "The talk" with your parents is awkward. No one wants to talk about those kind of things with their parents. 4) People need to learn the pros and cons of sex with others at a young age. They need to understand the harm apart from a religious and personal standpoint. They need some kind of scientific and biological viewpoint.
Students with severe learning disabilities should not be in regular/advanced classes.

I understand your point. But I want to ask you some questions. 1. What grade did you earn in that class? 2. What grade did that autistic person get in class? 3. If the autistic person was a detriment to your learning, did you talk to the professor so they could help you out? 4. Did the autistic person pay the money to be in the class? 5. What kind of things did this person say when he/she talked over the teacher? I can understand how you feel, but if you got something out of the class, you should not be so unhappy. Plus, there is a difference there. Learning disability and autism are kind of different. A learning disability like dyslexia doesn't affect a person's state of mind. But having autism does. Which could contribute to the reason why there was constant interruption. Even so, you and I must learn to live with others. No matter who they are and how they act. These are some things you should try: 1. Sitting in the front row so you can hear the teacher constantly. 2. Reading a given textbook more at home. 3. Talking to your professor. So now I will state my position, based that you talk about something different from your initial title, I will state my position on both. Should students with learning disabilities be allowed in regular and advanced classes? I believe that if they believe they can handle it, they should go for it. Should autistic students be allowed in regular and advanced classes? Yes, as long as they don't physically hurt others, are respecting others, are gaining respect from others, and are making friends, and if they feel comfortable, they should join. Again I know how you feel, but this world is not for one person. We need to know how to deal with situations that stop us from achieving our goals.
Students with severe learning disabilities should not be in regular/advanced classes.

As a student in advanced classes such as AP or IB, I find it counter-productive to have students with severe learning disabilities in the same classes as regular/advanced students. For example, in my AP US History course last year, a student with autism was included in my class. This student did not take notes, take any of the tests or participate in any way, although he did cause a disruption to the class as he frequently spoke out quite loudly over the professor. It is not fair that students such as i pay 89 dollars to take an advanced course just to have someone with a disability be a disruption throughout the course. It can be assumed that the student and other students with severe disabilities such as this learn little to nothing throughout the course so it is relatively pointless for them to be included. Round 1 will be used to accept the challenge. Round 2 will be for making arguments. Round 3 will be for counter-arguments.
evolution

The reason I am focusing on a definition is due to the fact that you are saying that the definition is wrong whislt not providing another. //How does the fact that "over time organisms' change" prove that evolution is the process by which life diversified?// Well first off evolution is change in life over time so I don't see what you are arguing. Second of all, if organisms change, that is diversification and since the change was by evolution the organisms diversified likewise. //however you have not provided evidence that all life developed from earlier forms.// If you look back into the fossil record you see the following: More complex organisms closer up and the deeper you go the simpler they get. And take for example, if a chicken in your backyard turned into a cat (it wouldn't happen but let's run with it) that would be a change from an earlier organism. Any change is from an earlier state. //In addition please explain why in the majority of fossil records we do not find a gradual consistent evolution over millions of years.// Not all animals fossilize. We are lucky to have the amount that we do but even if we had no fossils the fact that all DNA if you look back and construct a diagram forms a branching pattern with massive diversification. The funny thing is we do. But I will give you a specific example, chickens have the DNA for making teeth although they do not have them currently. Why you may ask. Chickens evolved from dinosaurs. If you compare the DNA of chickens and dinosaurs the similarities are remarkable. Also, the fact that they have the exact same gene for making teeth as dinosaurs do is an added bonus.[1] About micro and macro, macro is just lots of micro evolutions... //However evolution from one species to another has never been observed even with human intervention such as breeding// False. Humans in labs have breed fruit flies into entirely new species. //Any attempts to do so have ended in sterilization when the animal was bred to far./ Again you are wrong. It is true that the new species cannot breed with the old but that is the very definition of a species but they are viable and thus your argument falls. Next off, Darwin's finches are a prime example of a time when evolution via natural selection has cause diversity. Here I have provided you with more evidence and you will win if you disprove the chicken/dino evidence, disprove the fossil record and disprove Darwin's finches. Also may I remind the readers that my opponent has provided no definitions to any thing. If there is anything else you want ask but here I must say that if you can find a poodle in the precambrian era evolution is false. You should be doing work to disprove evolution. That is how the peer review forum works yet you ignore this and do no work for your case at all. I want to see what your next move is good sir. Macro: "arge-scale"[2] Micro: "mall-scale"[3] [1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com...
evolution

First off, I have shown that the process of evolution diversified life due to the fact that over time organisms change, as my definition states, and if multiple organisms change then that constitutes a diversification of life. Also, my definition actually says that different kinds of organisms developed and diversified from earlier life forms. If you still argue that evolution cannot cause diversification than this will merely be a semantics debate seeing as my definition proves my point exactly. //Just because there are a variety of species doesn't mean they evolved from earlier species. // No where in my definition is this stated but I will run with this anyway. If you look in the fossil record you see organisms changing from one to the next in a linear fashion ergo we can see that evolution does cause diversity. //As far as I can tell all you have stated was that If evolution occurred it would result in diversity. I don't see any evidence. // You never countered my definition and since you never countered it, it shall be what is used. The definition is all the evidence I need until you refute it/provide a counter definition. Once this is done then we can have an actual debate but seeing as you are arguing semantics without providing a counter definition your case is really falling.
evolution

I have read your words over and over. I am not shore that I see were you have proved that the process of diversification was evolution. Evolution was defined as "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"[1] Just because there are a variety of species doesn't mean they evolved from earlier species. As far as I can tell all you have stated was that If evolution occurred it would result in diversity. I don't see any evidence.
evolution

Ok, let's go. According to my definition, which was not contested, evolution does diversify. The definition I provided is as follows: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"[see #1 footnote from last round] The key part in this definition is;". .. to have developed and diversified from earlier forms. .. " This clearly shows that according to the definition of evolution life MUST diversify.
evolution

I look forward to this! :) So first off my opponent seems to think that evolution is the theory by which life (or the universe as he states later on) came into existence but this is just false. Evolution is defined as follows: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"[1] The key part in this statement is here:"...thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms..." Here we can see that evolution is not a theory of life began but how life changes. So here my opponent has either two options, a)to revise his resolution or b) provide a counter definition which agrees with his assumption (keep in mind it must also agree with his claim that says:"god could have created the universe, through evolution." meaning that evolution would have been a part of the beginning of the universe. I'm excited to see which my opponent chooses. [1] http://www.google.com...
evolution

I challenge any one to prove that evolution is the processes by which everything was created. micro evolution can be taken as a given. by micro evolution I mean improvement within a spices. the last response in the debate may not include any new argument, only response clarification and summarization. This is not a debate about existence of god. god could have created the universe, through evolution. How ever if there is no evidence for evolution life itself is evidence of a creator. Burdon of proof is obviosly on pro to give evidence for evolution.
The USAF needs more F-22 Raptors if it intends to maintain air supeiority.

This is my first debate on this website. As I wish to learn from this experience, I hope that whoever accepts my challenge is experienced at debating, even if their knowledge on the subject is limited. However, I will be satisfied with anyone who is willing to try their best to best me. The main reason that I believe that there is a need for more F-22s is that the Legacy Fighters*, which comprise the bulk of the fighters the U.S. Air Force are either obsolete, or fast becoming obsolete. This is because of the fact that since the end of the Cold War, Russian and Chinese defense technology has improved to the point of being on par with that of the U.S. The latest radar systems and SAMs**, coupled with the latest Russian-designed fighter aircraft, have served to create at least two nations that are largely impenetrable to all US aircraft, except for the F-22 Raptor and the B-2 Spirit. It should be noted that I also believe that the new F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, which was produced as a result of the Joint Strike Fighter program, does not provide a sufficient replacement for the F-22, because it does not have the penetration capabilities; the survivability; the deployability; in short, the performance, required to maintain air superiority, yet it comes at a similar procurement cost. I've heard it said that the F-35 has the same RCS*** as a metal golf ball, but have seen no official information stating anything like this (it also seems highly unlikely because of things such as the location of the F-35s hardpoints). If there are any points of good debate etiquette that I missed, I would not be offended by anyone PMing**** me with a notification, or just any tips. *Remaining Legacy Fighters: F-15C, F-16A-D, F/A-18A-D, F/A-18E-F **Surface-to-Air Missile ***Radar Cross Section ****Private Messaging
Abortion needs to stay legal.

Abortion is a woman's right. Before it was legal, woman would do things that they could die from to get an abortion. We have the technology to do abortions safely so why take it away? No one is forcing an abortion on anyone, so you don't have to have one. It is just there for people who have made a mistake. Some people are not meant to have kids. There are so many teenage pregnancies and they deserve to have the choice of abortion. Girls get pregnant from rape with some creepy man. They shouldn't have to go through with that. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she should be able to.
Kleptin Tournament: Abortion

I shall now attempt to summarize the debate. 1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being My opponent claimed that a fetus does not constitute *human* life. I then posited that development is irrelevant and arbitrary, given that we all have been developing ever since conception. My opponent responded by saying that a baby is released when a mother's body feels it is necessary. I countered this by noting premature birth and by demonstrating that all development is the same--that in no development stage does a fetus suddenly "become" human, because a fetus is always a human since the moment of conception. These last statements have not been disputed. 2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life My opponent conceded this second point, and then merged it with the first. Unequivocally negated. 3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights I have shown that accidental pregnancy is extremely rare (less than .01%)--this has not been disputed--and how one should accept the risk, however small, of pregnancy if one wants to engage in heterosexual sex. It's called social responsibility. Nothing justifies murder. 4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous I have demonstrated that the illegality of abortion would not increase the number of deaths of back alley abortions. My opponent called my sources biased, but has not demonstrated how they are biased. We must assume they are accurate. Ironically, my opponent asserts statistics from planned parenthood, though never providing links. In any case, how is Planned Parenthood supposed to be a reliable source, using my opponent own grading criteria? Planned Parenthood actually makes *DIRECT* money--multifold than that of any individual church--from their propaganda. In addition, Planned Parenthood is known for the countless lawsuits of fraud and coercion that have been brought up against them. 5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditedly Determined by Some Destiny I have shown how this is a Christian nations with laws deeply rooted in Christianity. My opponent's few rebuttals to this have been random assertions. In contrast, I have provided numerous sources and examples. These points of mine--particularly my later ones--have not been contested. They therefore stand. --------------------------- 1. Adoptions Exists Even if a mother is irresponsible, there is always adoption. Murder is not necessary. My opponent has brought up a few counterarguments, but I have proven these counterarguments moot. For example, even if a child will have a crappy upbringing, a crappy upbringing is infinitely better than no upbringing (that is, being murdered in the womb) at all. 2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother My sources have not been rebutted. --------------------------- Thank you again to Vi_Veri and Kleptin. I would also like to thank the judges for taking the time to read this. I hope this has been informative. One more time: thank you.
Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

Yes, my calculations weren't based around the average, which I knew, rather the number many people like to use to debate with; though it doesn't change my argument much at all. The owner would still lose $145,000 or 58% of his income with food he would still only have 10%, or $25,000, to pay the rest of the expenses and live off of. I was not agreeing I was stating what you're talking about and is true which is reliability insurance which is meant to protect the employer not the employee. What I am talking about is where the restaurant is paying for any outside medical expenses. The fact that my opponent has not been able to grasp that simple idea has proven his inability to debate this subject. I did present a rebuttal against his, because his main rebuttal was that I didn't have sources, so I supplied them. I showed him why his figures and sources were inaccurate, he hasn't addressed it. All he has done stated that my rebuttal was rubbish, proven his ignorance in his lack of knowledge on healthcare, and only made one valid point which was a minor detail that was properly fixed. My opponent still hasn't even addressed the fact that the employee is benefiting from this as well. If he truly wants to rebut my position, he must tear down all of my arguments and build his own which he has not done this entire debate.
Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

My opponents have false calculations he multiplied 7.25 by 40 when the average working hours is 35 which means his entire argument is completely inaccurate. He has not presented any new points and his rubbish rebuttal on my " They can easily access the insurance for injuries. But if a company lacks insurance the employee most likely is going to sue the business. Now using the business is detrimental to the finances of it If the restaurant is sued it most likely will close due to the expensive high in legal fees. Which can also result in more people losing their jobs." is ". If it was an injury that was caused by the owner regardless of where or when it happened, the owner would be, by law, expected to pay for it. " This is literally him agreeing with my argument.
Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

I did state one of sources being Statista which used IBIS world. My other sources are businessknowhow.com which used the Bureau of Labor Statistics which I used as well and managingyourhr.com. Granted I don't have exact number of gross income yet with the little information I had, being that small businesses usually make less than $50,000 a year. But my opponent is gravely mistaken on one issue especially being the fact that the insurance and minimum wage combined would be higher than he has stated. The way I did my math on that was simple, I multiplied 7.25 to 8, then 40 to represent the 40 hour work week, then since on average there are four weeks in a month by four, then by 12 to give a good (though not perfect) idea of what a year of work would be under this for 8 people total. With that alone you would get $111,360. Then you add on basic medical insurance which according to http://www.managingyourhr.com... cost on average $6,881 per employee, though I was conservative with my numbers and went with 6,000. The combined total of that and minimum wage would be $159,360. Which is 63% of his sources profit and $50,000 more than what my opponent told you. He also seems to misunderstand what I mean for healthcare or insurance. I am meaning insurance from outside injuries. If it was an injury that was caused by the owner regardless of where or when it happened, the owner would be, by law, expected to pay for it. What I mean are expenses that are caused by the employees, without the employers interference. My opponent didn't even talk about the fact that people who are getting tips actually make more money than the minimum wage, which is supported by the Atlantic and Washington Post. Also since many tips are just simply not reported many end up not paying taxes on the tips. As for Jonas Mikka Luster stating $250,000 was the average, my statistics as I have stated come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, his came from a psychologist, someone who studies the mind, not business. (Could you also show me where exactly he said it, I was not able to find that.) Yet even if his source were correct, according to http://smallbusiness.chron.com... approximately 32% of income goes to food already, add that to the 63% from the $159,360 you have left the owner 5% , or $12,500 of his income to spend on better facilities, bills, any other expenses and themselves for an entire year.
Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

Longstreet has completely lacked to state the sources for any factual evidence in his argument. Lets write a factual version of his argument. according to Jonas Mikka Luster a psychologist the average income is $250,000 The average minimum wage is $7.25 according to DOL (Department of Labor) also according to OECD (Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development) the average working our for a minimum wage American is 1 789 annually, it would make the annual wage for a minimum wage American $13417.5. With Governmental healthcare and dental insurance, it would cost the business only $200 for all employees annually on a shared plan. We shall use 8 employees as well for our example. It would cost the business around $109340 or about %43 of their gross income and this is including insurance. This rebuttal paragraph has clearly proven the lies that my opponent has told you. As I said in my rebuttal, only about %43 of the income of the restaurants are used to pay restaurant employees. This is no way detrimental to the business, as my opponent thinks. Insurance, in my opinion, should be essential! If, an employee is severally burned by a faulty stove etc. They can easily access the insurance for injuries. But if a company lacks insurance the employee most likely is going to sue the business. Now using the business is detrimental to the finances of it If the restaurant is sued it most likely will close due to the expensive high in legal fees. Which can also result in more people losing thier jobs.