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

Affirmative assertion #1: In 1974 ordered busing was the only way to desegregate Boston public schools. Evidence: White students had to get on busses as well as blacks. Evidence: Blacks tried other stragities for schools but didn't have enough money. Evidence: Neighborhoods were segregated and kids went to their neighborhood schools. But now have to go to other neighborhood schools. Affirmative assertion #2: Students and schools benefit more when they are able to go to an integrated schools. Evidence: Jobs in the real world require people to understand diversity. Evidence: Groups will not have the feeling of being or having more power than others. Evidence: Students will have a better self-esteem and be less bullied Affirmative assertion #3: Race should be used as a basis for school assignment. Evidence: Conflict between races would begin, if there was not diversity. Evidence: The 14th amendment isn't begin violated, it is designed to bring people together. Evidence: Brings students of different race, ethnics and economic background together.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative assertion: Race should not be used as a basis for school assignment Evidence: Students attend a school that is 80% white, while 70% of black students attend schools where nearly two-thirds of students are black and spanish. Evidence: Schools force teachers to teach kids they dont want to teach. Evidence: Any policy based on race is a violation of every childs 14th amendment. Evidence: Desegregation does not speak to dropout rates that hover near 50% for black and hispanic students. Assertion #2: Courts have the power to reduce the effects of racial discrimination. Evidence: People were still fighting. Evidence: People who live in a particular neighborhood. Evidence: A court can make a decision but can not change peoples minds. Assertion #3: To create a desegregated school system, a judge should not be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. Evidence: The mayor thinks the new plan will create quality and equality in schools. Evidence: A mayors job is to run the city , not the judge. Evidence: A mayors decision is way more important than a judges decision.
The earth is not a sphere.

ACCEPTED. Please note: just because something is "geometrically round" doesn't mean it is a perfect circle. An oval is "round". Most dictionaries define "round" as meaning "Shaped like or approximately like a circle". I'm putting this here just in case my opponent tries to run a semantic case that the Earth has slight deformations and thus isn't perfectly round - don't even bother. I will agree right here and now that the Earth is not perfectly round, but is nonetheless geometrically round. Since this is an acceptance round, I will state my case in round 2.
The earth is not a sphere.

Start your own rival Flat Earth Society! My CaseEarth is a 3D shape. In 3D, both of us agree that the Earth is a sphere. You think it looks different in 4D, but that does nothing to contest what the shape actually is, only how it appears. There's often a big gap between appearance and reality, especially as other dimensions come into play. My opponent has done nothing to argue the Earth is not a sphere, only that the Earth doesn't look like a sphere. As I will go on to show, he has done so by misrepresenting his sole source. And he has deliberately based all of his irrelevant arguments on not evidence, but a confusion of the word "dimension" with the phrase "alternate reality. " A sphere is still a sphere in 20 dimensions, just as it is in 4000 dimensions - it just looks different. That doesn't mean it is any less round - it really hasn't changed a bit, not transformed into a cylinder or anything else - and thus its shape must be equally round! Rebuttal"My opponent points out that object which is geometrically round in three-dimensional space will still appear to be round. This is only true in a special case; the object must remain stationary. "I don't know where my opponent got this from. If a 2-dimensional circle was floating past you, you would see that it is still round. Cut a piece of paper into a circle and move it around a bit for proof of this - the circle will remain just as round as when you cut it. I suspect my opponent is trying to map time on to a spatial dimension, as the authors of the paper he cites did, because otherwise this point is pure nonsense. The point is that we live in 4 dimensions, and we don't see the 3-dimensional Earth as a cylinder. "I would like to point out to a 4-dimentional being, earth "is" a tube-shape as much it "is" a circle to a 2 dimensional being"And I would like to point out that to a 4-dimensional being, a tube "is" round, just as for a 2-dimensional being, a circle "is" round. And by the way, a sphere in four spatial dimensions is not a tube. The paper you cited proposed if time was represented on a spatial axis, how a sphere might look. We live in four dimensions, and yet spherical objects are not tubes, as I explained last round, no matter how hard we imagine them to be otherwise. The authors of the paper were making an academic argument, not explaining how spatial dimensions actually operate. Basically, my opponent is giving you all a false impression as to what his paper was for.
The earth is not a sphere.

Hello larztheloser, Sorry for not being a member of the Flat Earth Society (still awaiting formal approval from the high priest). 2.0 Rebutting larz's case 2.1 Earlier, we defined the sphere to be in 3-dimensional. My opponent concede that it may appear to be tube-shape in 4-diension. My position is to show that the earth is not a sphere (nowhere has I added the additional perimeter that it needs to be in 3-dimentional space) . Thus I believe I haven't cross the boundary of conceded the debate. 3.0 Defending my case 3.1 My opponent points out that object which is geometrically round in three-dimensional space will still appear to be round. This is only true in a special case; the object must remain stationary. Since earth is not stationary, it is prudent to take my interpretation of a tube-shaped structure. 3.2 The second charge was that I was considering how earth "appears" to be and not how it "is". For that, I would like to point out to a 4-dimentional being, earth "is" a tube-shape as much it "is" a circle to a 2 dimensional being and a sphere to a 3-dimensional one. Again, thanks for being a formidable opponent and my apologies for embedding traps into this debate.
The earth is not a sphere.

Thanks for being a good sport!My CaseIt seems we have an agreement over one thing - that the world is a sphere in three spatial dimensions. Pro has to prove that the Earth is not (and I quote from his definition) a "geometrical round object in three-dimensional space." He has conceded all of this, and therefore conceded the debate. This is disappointing - I was hoping for a serious debate on whether the Earth is flat and held up by a flying spaghetti monster (if anybody else wants to challenge me on this topic, feel free).RebuttalWhen viewed from another spatial dimensionality, and object which is geometrically round in three-dimensional space will still appear to be round, in the same way that a sphere is as round as a circle. Human beings exist in four-dimensional space-time (http://en.wikipedia.org...), meaning time is a part of our everyday reality. While I suppose you could imagine that the Earth is tube-shaped like my opponent suggests, the fact is that when you return to reality, you find that the Earth is a sphere, and that the Earth is therefore round. Besides this, the whole argument has nothing to do with the resolution, which is not about how the Earth appears, but what the Earth is.I look forward to our last round.
The earth is not a sphere.

Hello larztheloser, Thanks for accepting this although I made it as a joke. Nonetheless, I am glad you spotted the first trap in the argument (and feeling pretty smug about it too). Well, being a good sport, I will continue the debate 1.0 The earth exist in a multi-dimensional frame 1.1 This is the main crux of my argument. Notice I did not specify that I would be viewing earth as a three-dimensional being; Indeed, I will approach it by considering a 4 dimensional being looking at earth. Most naturally, I would not see the earth as a sphere. In fact, adding the dimension of time, it is fully possible to visualize it as an ever-growing tube (Andrew J.H. et al) References Andrew J.H. et al. Meshview: Visualizing the Fourth Dimension Computer Science Department Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
Obama is better than Clinton

As I like to keep my final arguments short, I will summarize and refute your points. Hillary Clinton is more experienced. No doubt about it. Obama is more youthful, yes, but he is nowhere near as experienced as the Former first lady and senator. And also, she did alot as first lady...she didnt exactly just sit on her butt for eight years. She opposeds the war, and did some pretty good things for the soldiers. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THIS IS A DEBATE OF OPINION. I AM SPECIFICALLY DEBATING THAT THIS IS OPINION, WITH A FEW POINTS TO SUPPORT MRS. CLINTON TO BACK MYSELF UP. Now to refute your arguments. You said: "Senator Obama enlisted the support of law enforcement officials to draft legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases" the key word in there is draft. he tried, enlisted, and hasnt pulled through yet. As today is super tuesday, many political critics have predicted that Obama will come out on top, but the by-the-minute results say that people who initially decided on Obama but decided at the last minute to go for the better option and the option that would lead the country in the right direction: Clinton. thak you.
Obama is better than Clinton

you shouldnt think that clinton is better since she became a first lady cause hell she was just the first lady and not the president.Another thing is like i was saying she is hated by the republicans.But obama hell hes there kind of guy.Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. Obama also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama enlisted the support of law enforcement officials to draft legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.im not saying that im supporting republicans i talking about world peace and how could you achieve peace when even our own country is fighting because they hate someone.And another thing is its not about experience but it is of ability.....Now eat my words!
Obama is better than Clinton

ok, I just want to point out that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was her husband, and not her father. You also said that obama was a community leader, activist, etc. So was Mrs. Clinton. I want to make sure that people recognize this dbate as just your opinion. Im sure obama has done some bad things that people dont know about, as well. you cant just generalize and say that he is better. You also didnt refute my points that it is only your opinion and the points of which Clinton is better. Next time, please write more and actually focus on refuting my points. Let me summarize for you, highliting some things from my last passage: First off, experience wise, she has had the most of it (were talking between her and obama), from being a senator, to being first wife. Heck, her husband must of rubbed off on her somewhat. Secondly, Obama is young. He is the youngest candidate for office, and while many think he is the next kennedy he is slightly unexperienced. He is strongly winning the african-american vote and the supporters of the Kennedy foundation, who have endorsed Obama. Obama, only being a young 45 year old senator, has not nearly as much experience as Hilary. She was first lady and senator, and allthough I am repeating myself I feel it neccesary to prove that point. i will repeat for the last time, opinion. Some believe that Clinton is better than Obama. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Obama is better than Clinton

Barack Obama has dedicated his life to public service as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and leader in the Illinois state Senate. Obama now continues his fight for working families. But you must consider that even though Clinton is fit to be president,there is still some other bad things.People,especially republicans,hate her.It might happen that the government would have conflicts rather than unite for one reason and thats to make united states the country of well being. And you must also consider what scandal her father did.We must remember the Lewinsky Scandal that her father made.Like what they say,"history is about to happen again" and "what the tree is,that is also its fruit."
Immigration

I disagree with your point about "If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. " I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.
Immigration

I believe if there are some pathes for illegal immigrants to get citizenhood, the path will promote more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Actually there are some legitimate paths for foreigners to got citizenhood, and the way to define whether an immigrate is legal or not is to check whether they got citizenhood through these paths. If the government provided another path for the illegal immigrants to get citizenship, how could we define they are legal or illegal? It seems that every illegal immigrats will be potential legal immigrants at that moment.
Communism, Religion.....Same thing, different priests.

That is not even an attempt at an argument, and sounds more like an arbitrary insult instead, but I'll oblige:Firstly, I must state that you have given no reasons or evidence for your views at all. I would like very much to hear how you support this idea.Now on to my arguments:1. Definition of "Religion" and "Priests"This is a very, very broad term used very, very vaguely. Are you talking about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Sikhism, Wicca, Neopaganism, German paganism, Irish polytheism, Mormonism, or even Atheism, etc.? There are many, many, many religions in the world, and not all include priests-e.g., the Baha-i religion. (Also, only certain religions call their clergy "priests", e.g., Catholicism.) Within such a diverse range of varying religions, it is impossible to claim that all of them are synonymous, or even just compatible, with a single school of thought (Communism).2. Differing focus of Communism and ReligionIn addition, it should be stated that religion concerns the spiritual and supernatural (unless you're using the word to mean "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"), whereas Communism is a political theory. True, both politics and religion affect society, but they are very distinct and separate; one governs mankind, the other governs reality itself.I eagerly await hearing you make an actual case.
Communism, Religion.....Same thing, different priests.

Firstly, I must state that you have given no reasons or evidence for your views at all. I would like very much to hear how you support this idea.Now on to my arguments:1. Definition of "Religion" and "Priests"This is a very, very broad term used very, very vaguely. Are you talking about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Sikhism, Wicca, Neopaganism, German paganism, Irish polytheism, Mormonism, or even Atheism, etc.? There are many, many, many religions in the world, and not all include priests-e.g., the Baha-i religion. (Also, only certain religions call their clergy "priests", e.g., Catholicism.) Within such a diverse range of varying religions, it is impossible to claim that all of them are synonymous, or even just compatible, with a single school of thought (Communism).2. Differing focus of Communism and ReligionIn addition, it should be stated that religion concerns the spiritual and supernatural (unless you're using the word to mean "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"), whereas Communism is a political theory. True, both politics and religion affect society, but they are very distinct and separate; one governs mankind, the other governs reality itself.I eagerly await hearing you make your case.
It is probable that Adolf Hitler still lives

I make a long re-entrance to the debate seen! I saw this and just had to take it. My opponent is a very, very, confused man!!!!! He makes the mind-boggingly preposterous claim that Adolf Hitler is still alive!*snorts*--When the clear evidence shows that Hitler never existed!!!!! I will look forward to crushing your inferior race of arguments. I don't even know what that means. God, I'm drunk.
It is probable that Adolf Hitler still lives

Ewigge BlumenkraftMy dear bipedal constituents, this struggle has reached a new tempest. For the intimations are drawing together to form the larger picture. All five debaters in this arena of argumentation have something to conceal. And the forces at play are working towards an ends that only the most terribly confused could navigate their way to comprehension. As Pro's first arguments were founded on the existence of Hitler, which I obliterated, so are all his arguments founded upon the existence of another sort, particularly his latest arguments. This existence is his own. The plain and obvious truth to anyone who has an eye to see is that my opponent does not exist.ARGUMENTSC1. Pro does not exist.My contention is simple and yet profound. Pro does not exist because he is myself.Since he is myself, he is also the winner of the debate in which I proved that I do not exist. [1]Since he doesn't exist, that proves the first part of my argument that he is myself.My argument proves itself.One-sentence paragraphs.One-sentence paragraphs.I just love one-sentence paragraphs.Makes my argument look longer.Lets just put a few more in there.Yep.That's better.C2. Pro's arguments are founded on his existence.S.a. All of his arguments are displayed through typing. Everyone is aware of the blatant truth that non-existing people do not type anything. Thus, all of Pro's arguments are completely irrational. S.b. Pro claims that he can attest to the existence of the moon because he has been there. He could not have done this if he does not exist.S.c. Pro claims that he can attest to the existence of Hitler because he has talked to him. He could not have done this if he does not exist.S.d. Pro claims he is a Jew. As I demonstrated, Jews do not exist.S.e. HE DOESN'T EXIST! HE JUST DOESN'T, OKAY?!?! JeeeeeeeeeezC5. Other random addressesfnordS.a. Evidence from both pro and anti Illuminati sources are not evidence for Nazism. They only evidence the war. Now, I wouldn't go as far to say that the war actually existed, but it certainly did happen. Though not for reasons that in anyway resemble the officially story, since much of the driving characters are myth. The actual cause of the war is a heated argument between George W Bush, supreme Poobah of Libya and Stalin, president of Europe, regarding the size of their dongs. This is, in fact, how all wars in history have started. fnordS.b. EID LLIW UOY RO ITANIMULLI EHT ROF ETOVfnord.S.c WARNING. Do not read the last round unless you have ductape nearby to keep your head from exploding! The final pieces of this imponderable conundrum will finally come together.fnord.S.d. My apologies for a short round. I had to post it in a hurry. Next round will make up.SOURCES1. http://www.debate.org...3. [2]4. [3]5. [4]
A debate with three or more participants cannot truly be considered a "debate".

"If my opponent DEFERs, he/she will make his/her opening statement SECOND and have the final word."To abide by the structure of this debate, I will deliver my opening arguments after my opponent. I await my opponent's opening arguments.Here are the definitions of the terms that I will use for this debate.Debate - a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.[1]Truly - in a truthful way.[2]Consider - think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.[3]Participant - a person who takes part in something.[4]Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] https://www.google.com...[4] https://www.google.com...
A debate with three or more participants cannot truly be considered a "debate".

This debate will take place over the course of five rounds. The first round, for me, anyway, will be entirely introductory. Whoever chooses to challenge me, however, has the option to either BEGIN or DEFER. If my opponent BEGINs, he/she will make their opening argument, define terms, and so on FIRST. In exchange, that opponent must pass in the final round, giving me the final word. If my opponent DEFERs, he/she will make his/her opening statement SECOND and have the final word. With that in mind, I now give the challenger the option to BEGIN or DEFER. (Note: I will be arguing "pro" for this debate; my challenger shall argue "con".) A couple of other miscellaneous ground rules: each side gets 48 hours to formulate their argument during each round, each side gets 10,000 characters per round, the voting period is three days, and it is open voting under a 1-point system, where the person must solely pick the winner of the debate without comment. Additionally, the debate shall consist of four rounds as follows: Pro 1. Introduction Con 1. Introduction OR Opening Argument/Definition of Terms Pro 2. Opening Argument/Definition of Terms Con 2. Opening Argument/Definition of Terms OR Argument Clarification/Elaboration Pro 3. Argument Clarification/Elaboration Con 3. Argument Clarification/Elaboration OR Rebuttal Pro 4. Rebuttal Con 4. Rebuttal OR Closing Statements Pro 5. Closing Statements Con 5. Closing Statements OR Pass If my opponent chooses to start in Round 1, he or she will follow the round titles on the RIGHT. If he or she defers to Round 2, he or she will follow the round titles on the LEFT. Let the debate begin!
College should be entirely government funded

Harvard may be number one but have you actually looked at who goes majority of students are white which doesn't represent true diversity do you know why because of the wealth disparity that have been caused by years of oppresions that the government placed on minorities. Jim Crow Laws. With private univeristies raising cost each and every year the common man can no longer afford college. There are now even arguments that since you cannot afford college that you shouldn't even bother to go.
College should be entirely government funded

Government should pay the bill because it would increase the education rate so that we can be more competive in the world and we could raise our rank we were at one point number 1 in the world now we have decrease to 32 countries in Germany are higher thatn us. We need to be more compeitive because jobs are being offshore to other countries like india innovation. Iphone used to be usa made now China made. The education rate is dropping and with that come disparities ranging from race, wealth