BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school

I don't believe teachers should not carry concealed weapons (I'm assuming you're talking about guns as you said teachers would need to go through fire arm training class) because not everyone has the nerve and skill to shoot accurately even with a training class. How many years do the police spend training for shooting guns? Certainly not a short class. Guns may also be used in inappropriate circumstances if the teacher isn't fully stable as even with mental checks not all murderers have a previous record. If a student got their hands on a weapon the results could be disastrous the shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999 and Virginia Tech University in April 2007 were both caused by armed students shooting other students. With easier access to these weapons due to staff carrying them these cases could go up. Guns may also go off accidentally as it already happened in 2014 http://archive.sltrib.com... With guns, students may not trust the teachers as much as they are dangerous. I, as a student certainly wouldn't trust a teacher with a gun and I'm sure other students would agree.
Racial profiling is a legitimate police strategy.

It took me a moment to recover from the whopper you told there. The Pew Research Institute says the 55-60% of all illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico. Excluding all other Hispanic countries this already comprises the majority of our illegal immigrants. I just wanted to address that though the topic here is not immigration. Racial profiling is a legitimate tool in the same way any part of a profile is crucial. For instance, if you were looking for a serial killer in Washington DC, and you were checking all males between the ages of 25 and 45 (the probable age of a serial killer), you could save a lot of time if you knew that the majority of serial killers are white. Given the high African-American population of DC this would narrow down your list of suspects considerably.
Racial profiling is a legitimate police strategy.

Racial profiling is one of the least effective means of investigating a crime or case I have ever seen. There are just as many illegal white immigrants as there are hispanic or african american. If you stop a Hispanic person who is doing the speed limit on the road, because you think he may be illegal, you are wasting your time and there is just as likely a chance that the white male driving past you, as you talk to the Hispanic person, is illegal. If you don't mind, could you make your point a little more clearly? What EXACTLY are you arguing for this case?
Racial profiling is a legitimate police strategy.

Mexican illegal immigrants, by definition, are not documented either, so your argument fails, and you cite no authority for an argument that people are pouring over the Canadian border. My citing of the Pew Research center ads validity to my argument, the center was quoted in an article in the National Journal, which can be found at http://www.nationaljournal.com... Your comment about going to Baltimore to commit a murder makes a valid point, however, this is not how most crime is committed. Most murders occur with a motive, not by someone simply wishing to kill somebody else. In fact, since you chose Baltimore, which I live just a few miles from, it would interest you to know that Baltimore's gangs are not easily identifiable (see the Bureau of Justice Assistance article at https://www.ncjrs.gov...), and therefore, complete profiles, including the probable race of the unidentified subject, would be of even more value in a city like Baltimore. I am for using a complete profile to locate suspects for any crime. Sometimes, but not always, these include the probable race of the suspect, and should be considered.
Racial profiling is a legitimate police strategy.

If I wanted to commit a serious crime I would go somewhere that is highly populated by hispanics or african americans, and would almost instantly not be considered a suspect. This is going by your logic of course. For instance in Baltimore, Maryland more than 80% of all murder is done by the African American population there, and if I killed someone in that city I would more than likely get away with it due to racial profiling. I apologize for assuming you meant immigration, but you also need to consider all the illegal Canadian immigrants that enter America every single day. Most of them are not documented into any statistical websites or papers, and therefore the 55-60 percent hispanic statistic you gave me is in actuality a fallacy.
St Francis of Assisi's English Primary School

Because of it's performance in band (1), SFAEPS is a good school music wise. SFAEPS is a Catholic school, and does many things relating to this religion, including its motto (2). So, it has a good religious curriculum, which only makes it a good school to those who are religious. Based off of its website (2), the program seems good for an elementary school. However, a lack of public scores on standardized testing makes the effectiveness of the school hard to judge.Sources(1) ;(2) http://www.sfaeps.edu.hk...;
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

Since the firefighters knew it was going to happen approximately three hours prior to it finally collapsing (1), for it to have been demolition the fire department would have needed to be in on it; meaning any that died that day would have been willing martyrs under the same mentality as suicide bombers. Doubtful to the point of moronicy.The majority on listings on your source were shorter in direction, and none have similar cause. Most in fact had active battles with the fire department. Plus of the six total, not all of which even used the same support type; hardly "many" as claimed. These facts line up to make the source utterly useless. This is aside from the entire point being a huge logical fallacy. To quote one of the contributors of LiveLeaks.com talking about this very issue "just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happenRead more at http://www.liveleak.com... just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happenRead more at http://www.liveleak.com... just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happenRead more at http://www.liveleak.com... " (2).However as you have pointed out, the building collapsing the way it did would be "something impossible due to fire." Please explain the method of demolition that did not employ fire.Sources:(2) http://www.liveleak.com...
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

Fire has never in the history of mankind caused a Steel skyscraper to collapse. There are many other examples of fires in skyscrapers , longer and more severe than the fire at building 7. http://911research.wtc7.net... Not only that but the fire in the building was not totally symmetrical across all the steel columns of the building, in order for the building to collapse at free fall acceleration requires all of its steel members to fail with a second of each other something impossible due to fire.
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

In short:"I await your actual case for why it was a controlled demolition, and how such a feat was done without the use of any fire"No case is given to in any way suggest a controlled demolition; in fact some of pro's claims make Godzilla a more likely cause (as he insists fire could not be involved in the demolition, and most demolition methods involve that pretty heavily; such as thermite). Vote con!New point:How the heck would controlled demolition devices even survive in that inferno, in order to be triggered with such perfect timing?Final Rebuttals (very skippable):"A firefighter has very little engineering background and their comments are irrelevant to the discussion."Firefighters predicted the collapse, based on obversable damage and warping of the building. Claiming they are unskilled, only makes how obvious their observations are greater proof to relevance; as even the untrained eye could see how bad the damage was."Like I said the building does not topple over as it would from damage to the one side of the building."Fire left unattended for several hours spreads out, you can test this in your own home. If you are right, post pictures of the fire having stayed put and not consumed anything outside of where you left it.As shown in my first source at 1:40 (showing the NIST computer model, backed up by a live recording) the building did not fall all at once; the fire spread throughout it, eight seconds before the final collapse started inner ones could be observed."The entirety of the videos"We heard it straight from pro, he was unable to find this alleged claim of full free fall acceleration within his own source, merely the quoted denial of it."all steel members to fail with a split second of each other."Observable evidence disagrees, as shown in the videos and pointed to above (first source, 1:40)."The computer simulation doesnt match the key observations as shown in my video"You've shown multiple videos of people talking, none of the collapse."NIST admits their simulation doesnt match"The quote provided was not on the page linked, nor on any of the immediate sub-pages. Throwing out 'it says on the Internet' is first lazy, second invalid.However even if they say their simulation is flawed, this does nothing to support any demolition theory, leaving such still firmly in the realms of the Invisible Pink Ninjas, or David Icke's (perhaps the best known truther) Shapechanging Jew Lizards.
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

Im sorry I should have stipulated in my debate that the opponent con must be an Engineer, this debate has turned into a typical nitpicking session by a debunker.I did not want the debate to get off topic with what the firefighters claimed or believed at the time.A firefighter has very little engineering background and their comments are irrelevant to the discussion.Like I said the building does not topple over as it would from damage to the one side of the building. The building does not topple over if any viewer out there does not believe me just watch the video .When does building wreckage ever form a completely symmetrical pile from controlled demolitions ? An asymmetrical collapse would cause the building to lean to one side and fall over causing the wreckage to have fallen in one direction not spread out randomly .'Twenty minutes of videos, with one small quote taken from only one... Please indicate which timestamps are of importance; particularly from the second (right now it sounds a lot like something out of context).'The entirety of the videos are important if you understood what they were saying."I propose seven hours of uncontrolled fires did it."you proposed this argument.I already showed that a Scientific hypothesis must be in accordance with key observations , the fire explanation however does not account for free fall acceleration of the tower as fire can not symetrically cause all steel members to fail with a split second of each other.The computer simulation doesnt match the key observations as shown in my video , they do not correlate. Three main observations conflict with the NIST simulation.1.As I showed in the videos NIST ended up admitting the building had moments of free fall acceleration however the simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall .2.The NIST simulation does not look the same at the actual collapse.3.NIST admits their simulation doesnt match . “The results of this scenario were consistent with observations except that the screening wall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 612http://www.nist.gov...
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

"It would have been literally impossible for the firefighters to have predicted how the building collapsed the way it did as fire has never brought down a steel skyscraper."Already addressed "the firefighters knew it was going to happen approximately three hours prior to it finally collapsing (1)." Since pro admits "I do not accuse the firefighters of being in on it," it was not a scheduled demolition, but the predicted result of the massive damage done by terrorist action. Note the complete lack of coherence in pros case.Adding to this, the twin towers fell not from planes hitting some central support, but from the ensuing blaze. Two examples of fire taking out steel buildings, literally the same day as the prediction in question."If the building had however collapsed due to this bulge it would have fallen over on its side"This mirrors the 'into its own shadow' hypothesis, which is easily disproven by actual pictures of the wreckage. Just because from one camera angle it looked to have fallen pretty straight downward, doesn't mean it a perfect clean collapse. "No engineer or firefighters could have predicted that the building would collapse in its own footprint the way it did."Also see the above photograph."One sentence is plagarism ?"Yes."This is just a simple engineering fact. I liked the wording."And the plagiarism is admitted to."Shyam ... contradicting himself"Twenty minutes of videos, with one small quote taken from only one... Please indicate which timestamps are of importance; particularly from the second (right now it sounds a lot like something out of context)."the first round of the debate mentions Im asking Con to provide a scientific hypothesis of how the building would have collapsed in another manner without the use of explosives"That statement is longer than pro's entire first round, which in fact made no requests. I am still awaiting pro's actual case for it having been a controlled demolition.Nevertheless I have provided a simple hypothesis: "I propose seven hours of uncontrolled fires did it.""only stupid people join the army" was "aimed at some Marine"Insulting the army, a favored marine pastime, was aimed as insult against a marine... I can't actually turn this into an Ad Hominem, such would be a fallacy.Anyway thank you for the respect given to medics, even if your views are firefighters is rather confusing.I await your actual case for why it was a controlled demolition, and how such a feat was done without the use of any fire (a research article on 'Cold Thermite' perhaps?).
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

I did not come here to argue strawman arguments about who was involved but rather a valid scientific hypothesis of any other means in which fire could bring down a high rise steel structure in its own footprint with moments of free fall acceleration.I do not accuse the firefighters of being in on it , It would have been literally impossible for the firefighters to have predicted how the building collapsed the way it did as fire has never brought down a steel skyscraper.There was however asymmetrical damage to the building resulting in a bulge, like the firefighters said but that was only their opinion at the time 3 hours before in which the building did not subsequently collapse due to the bulge. If the building had however collapsed due to this bulge it would have fallen over on its side as the damage is asymmetrical. No engineer or firefighter could have predicted that the building would collapse in its own footprint the way it did.Because the building did not fall asymmetrically we know that it wasn't caused by this bulge and so do NIST.2.One sentence is plagarism ? This is just a simple engineering fact. I liked the wording.Regardless I will use a quote from Shyam sunder (1)“ free fall time would be [the fall time of an object that has no structural components below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”Later Shyam sunder admitted free fall therefore contradicting himself.(2)'To anyone with a working brain, pro has just claimed that the building falling the way it was seen doing was "physically impossible." Thus either he's saying the building is still there, or it never was there to begin with.'This logic fails because as the first round of the debate mentions Im asking Con to provide a scientific hypothesis of how the building would have collapsed in another manner without the use of explosives.If the building had fallen over there wouldnt be this debate."only stupid people join the army"This wasn't part of our debate so It is irrelevant. It was merely an opinion in the comment section aimed at some Marine who is not a medic.I actually admire medics who go to combat to save lives and do not think its a stupid thing. 1.http://www.youtube.com...2.http://www.youtube.com...
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

"How and why would firefighters know it was going to collapse"To quote my first source (1:28): "At one point firefighters measured a bulge forming in the southwest corner, and determined that building seven was likely to collapse" (1).Since you are accusing them of having prior knowledge of a series of scheduled demolitions (some magical type of cold demolitions I might add), I'd like to remind you that three-hundred-thirty-one firefighters died that day (3).So aside from how to convince that many Americans to randomly commit suicide, how do you get the rest to keep any odd behavior a secret? "for the simple reason that a progressive collapse involving freefall is physically impossible"Plagiarism! Anyone who wishes to verify, may highly pro's text and do a websearch on it.At least this explains why pro is talking past me, instead of actually responding to my points, or answering the actual cross examination questions.To anyone with a working brain, pro has just claimed that the building falling the way it was seen doing was "physically impossible." Thus either he's saying the building is still there, or it never was there to begin with.Further breaches of conduct:"only stupid people join the army"When I did not post another argument round immediately (since I actually respond to opponents, rather than copy/paste from other websites), he started randomly posting hate content in the comment section; such as the above quote, which I can only assume is based on my profile information. Yes I signed up as a medic for the army, because I wanted less Americans to die overseas... I fail to see how wanting less death in the world, is an idiotic act.Sources:(3) http://www.nytimes.com...
Building 7 was a controlled demolition

How and why would firefighters know it was going to collapse if a high rise structural steel building has never collapsed before, because they were told thats why. It would be literally impossible for a firefighter to predict such a thing or an engineer for that matter. According to the scientific method , a scientific theory such as NISTs computer simulation cannot contradict real observations. The NIST computer simulation however is in direct conflict with the real observed event of the WTC 7 collapse. The NIST simulation does not fall at free fall . If you pause at various intervals the Real collapse is faster than the simulation. Meaning the NIST model is bunkum. This conclusion is reinforced by NIST"s refusal to release its computer models, combined with the fact that progressive collapse resulting in freefall could never be replicated experimentally " for the simple reason that a progressive collapse involving freefall is physically impossible.
god

It has been very enlightening. My opponent's strong convictions and unwavering religious faith can clearly be felt throughout the entire discussion. Rebuttal My opponent suggests that how I protect my creation (i. e. , my son) from harm doesn't necessarily apply to what god should do with his creation. This may be true but if god is said to be benevolent, then why wouldn't he do everything in his power to ensure his creation doesn't needless experience pain? This is because he is either not benevolent or he just doesn't exist. I am pretty sure you know where I stand on this matter. Pro goes on further to state that god doesn't cause pain, but this flies in the face of Deuteronomy 32:39 (1), referenced in the first round, where god does in fact cause pain through the wounds he inflicts. Points conceded by pro There have been a couple of points throughout this debate that my opponent concedes. First, my opponent informs me that the bible is god's instruction manual for mankind, thus suggesting that it is the word of god. But Pro concedes that the bible can be contradictory. She goes on to state that one should keep interpreting the biblical passages to clarify any contradictions. For me, this doesn't make much sense since you can't clear up inconsistencies with further explanation. So, if the bible came from god and it is full of inconsistencies, then he isn't the all-knowing being he is made out to be. Second, my opponent concedes that free will can't be used as evidence of god, because: 1) she never proved it actually exists; and 2) because she agrees that the premise of a god given free will is derived from the conclusion that god exists, thus it is a logical fallacy. Reasons to vote for con Pro raised many points during this debate to provide proof of god, but none of them have thoroughly establishes tangible evidence of his existence. Further, I successfully refuted every indirect claim she has provided. Moreover, during round 1, I established the unlikelihood of ever been able to empirically demonstrate the objective material existence of god, shifting the burden of proof to pro; this was never addressed. I have also clearly and consistently demonstrated that the evidence used to prove the existence of god can also be used to disprove him, which suggests to me that god is nothing more than a man-made idea developed to explain the unexplainable. Reference 1. . http://bible.cc...
god

I am for the existence of god, Con will argue against the existence of god, Present your argument in first round (meaning don't just accept) reason 1: The universe cant be infinitely old (some atheists assert that universe always existed) because the second law of aerodynamics states that energy will eventually deplete in a closed system. reason 2: The complexity and design of the universe is evidence of god. One analogy I will use is the watch analogy, if you walk on a sidewalk and you see a watch you arent going to think that the watch randomly assembled itself you're going to think that it was created by a more complex being (humans) I will present more reasons as this debate goes on longer.