BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The authorities have the right, and they should, shoot if it is necessary as a mean of self defense.

I'm going to take your statements and offer rebuttals on them 1.As displayed many times, authorities have been in numerous situation that required them to shoot at a person or persons as a mean of SELF DEFENSE. This is completely acceptable, because it is not to be cruel, or mean. It is because they are trying to preserve themselves from any further harm. You are correct however their are also instances of police brutality, repeated discharge of firearms, disproportionate number of arrests for racial minorities, and just plan incompetence on part of the police officers involved. I'm not implying that every case goes down this way but the standard that police need to defend themselves comes both ways. 2.In the Ferguson case, the evidence that was provided shows that the person who was shot had physically threatened the officer. The officer was simply defending himself Yes however the officer discharged his weapon six times to bring down one subjected who had to advance over 10 yards. Are you implying that the police officer could not use any number of nonlethal weaponry such as a taser. 3.iven the following situation with two possible outcomes: Situation: Authorities are driving to an accident on the highway. Someone stops them, and begins to dance wildly in front of the car, blocking their access to the accident, and causing a public disturbance. The first officer politely asks the man to move aside so that they may progress further down the highway. The man however doesn't move away. Instead he moves closer to the car. The second officer gets out of the car, and demands that the man move. He continues to come towards the car. Both officers get back into the car, and roll down their windows, demanding that the man go back to his car and leave. Now the man is on top of the car, and he is coming around to the drivers side. The man reaches in and grabs the officer. The second officer tries to pull his companion away, but the other man pulls harder bashing the officers head into the WINDOW. This does not explain why the officers did not use any of the nonlethal weaponry available to them or quickly subdue the subject physically because the officers outnumber the subject. You act as if the only way to resolve the issue is with implementation of lethal force. However due to the advancement of technology the police force has access to non lethal solutions. So the black and white canvas you paint in this scenario is incorrect because their are multiple solutions to the problem that you describe. The point that I'm trying to push is that police officers should be held to a higher standard and be able to use non lethal tools to resolve situations. Thus in my opinion no one has a right to shoot some one even in self defense and must be criminal investigated as anyone else should. If you disagree than you are infringing upon the criminals natural rights in America and set the stage for police officers that have a license to kill a license that no one should have.
The authorities have the right, and they should, shoot if it is necessary as a mean of self defense.

Once again I apologize for not posting the previous round, for I have finals and am very busy with my school work. Now to continue, since there was a minor set back, this round will be a statement, and my opponent will have the chance to rebuttal this, and conclude. If my opponent wishes to restart this debate, then please say so in the comments. I am more than willing to do so. My argument: As displayed many times, authorities have been in numerous situation that required them to shoot at a person or persons as a mean of self defense. This is completely acceptable, because it is not to be cruel, or mean. It is because they are trying to preserve themselves from any further harm. In the Ferguson case, the evidence that was provided shows that the person who was shot had physically threatened the officer. The officer was simply defending himself. Given the following situation with two possible outcomes: Situation: Authorities are driving to an accident on the highway. Someone stops them, and begins to dance wildly in front of the car, blocking their access to the accident, and causing a public disturbance. The first officer politely asks the man to move aside so that they may progress further down the highway. The man however doesn't move away. Instead he moves closer to the car. The second officer gets out of the car, and demands that the man move. He continues to come towards the car. Both officers get back into the car, and roll down their windows, demanding that the man go back to his car and leave. Now the man is on top of the car, and he is coming around to the drivers side. The man reaches in and grabs the officer. The second officer tries to pull his companion away, but the other man pulls harder bashing the officers head into the window. Outcome 1: The officers don't shoot, but instead sit there with the inability to leave, as the man physically harms them, until someone else comes to help. Outcome 2: One of the officers shoots the man to get away and to prevent any more physical harm to the officers. Although the man gets harmed in the second outcome, both the officers are able to get out of the situation and continue further to aid with the accident after calling an ambulance to handle the other accident with the man. The two officers would not be guilty because they were using self defense by shooting the man and leaving. So it is evident that the authorities have the right, and most certainly should shoot if it is necessary for them as a mean of self defense. Not only are they saving the authorities, but they are also helping to keep the world a safer, calmer place. Thank you.
Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Thank you for starting this debate. I shall argue that public schools should remain co-ed. My points are as follows:1. School is practice for the "real world"- In school, children learn skills needed to succeed as adults. Even more important than academic facts are social skills- how children interact with others. By keeping public schools co-ed, children would learn social skills that they will use their whole lives. Pro has said that same-sex schools would eliminate girls getting distracted by guys and vice versa. However, this is an important part of growing up. Kids gain experience and wisdom from events that happen in school, and this should not be forcibly denied from them.2. Forced same-sex education creates sexism- If parents want to send children to private same-sex schools, that's their decision. However, making all public schools divided by sex actually aggravates sexism. This is the era where society is becoming more gender equal; making public schools same-sex is a step backwards. If schools were forced to become divided by gender, inequalities would arise, as well as result in deepened stereotypes. Children will feel defined by their sex, not who they are as a person. Therefore, though same-sex education might "prevent sexist jokes in class", as Pro says, it does nothing to help the underlying problem of sexism. It actually worsens it.3. An unnecessary drain on resources- If same-sex public schools were implemented, more schools would need to be built, which takes up money that would be put to much better use elsewhere in the school district: new technology, for example. On the other hand, if only existing schools were used by dividing them into gendered schools, each school would have to serve a much larger area, increasing travel time and transportation costs. Based on these points, same-sex public schools are not only unnecessary, they will have harmful effects on their students.
Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Thank you for your arguments. I shall give a rebuttal to each of your points separately. "New Schools would not have to be built to separate genders just different sections of a building." That would only limit the classes that kids can choose. In average sized schools, there are only a few sections of each class. If students are limited by which gender the class is, they might not get the classes that would challenge them the most. Classes without enough students would not run. "Also It would prevent violence in some cases if they are separate sections in a building." Violence does not happen exclusively across genders. In many cases, girls fight girls, and boys also fight boys. Therefore this would not have a significant effect on violence rates in school. Also, having a sufficient amount of teachers watching hallways between classes would be much more effective than separating the genders. "Things like teen pregnancy would go down" If everyone is still in the same school, that would not have much of an effect on teen pregnancy since it is still possible for teenagers to get together outside of school. School, if co-ed, is a good opportunity to find out more about a wide range of people, so that teenagers know when they are getting into a questionable relationship. "Kids would learn better because males and females learn better so A teacher can focus on one thing." It is not clear what Pro means here. Presently, teachers teach with one method to everyone, and there is no significant difference between how effective the lesson is for boys and girls. "It would also make talking in class go down because learning should be the number 1 focus in school" Separating genders would not make talking in class go down, because the amount of talking isn't because of gender. The classes with only girls will still talk amongst themselves, and so will the boys. Pro has not made any points which proves that same-sex public schools will help the education system. Pro has also declined to respond to most of my points regarding sexism. I stand by my position.
Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Good Argument. However it must be known that Sex would also be a problem. New Schools would not have to be built to separate genders just different sections of a building. Also It would prevent violence in some cases if they are separate sections in a building. Things like teen pregnancy would go down and Kids would learn better because males and females learn better so A teacher can focus on one thing. It would also make talking in class go down because learning should be the number 1 focus in school
Is there any Co-relation between education and success

Although I totally agree that education is highly important for success, I have to say that there are ALOT of people who are educated but aren't successful and there people who have had limited education who are highly successful. You can be successful in anything. There is no definition for this. I argue that success really starts in the mind meaning if one has the desire to be successful and have what it takes to do the work, one does not have to be educated. For instance. If I had good people skills, without education, I could take on a sales job and be trained on the job for this. Some of the most successful people are the ones with people skills. Actors have been found just by their good looks, they had no education in acting. One such person I know of is Charlise Theron for example. People who have worked their way up the ladder or who have become entrepreneurs sometimes have just had basic education. I can also say that many a Lawyer for instance even with education may not be successful by what we would define it to be. Some corrupt. Some heads of state, well educated but also corrupt. That isn't success. Although education helps and is important, I am not downplaying that; just saying that to be successful starts in the way we think and feel about ourselves and our future. It can be obtained without education.
Compatabilism is a flawed philosophical doctrine.

Many thanks in advance to whomever accepts this debate.I originally sent this challenge to Reasoning; however, like most people on this site, he declined my direct challenge. I don't see why considering not only is he a vehement Compatibilist, but so are some of the most brilliant philosophers in the world today. There is plenty of pro-Compatibilist information for my future opponent to steal from the internet, I can assure you. In fact it is the most popular position, so I will be arguing against the status quo. In this debate I will attempt to prove that Compatibilism is a non-sensical position. It accepts determinism and free will simultaneously, which I posit is illogical if you use the correct definitions of both terms. In accepting this debate, my opponent acknowledges to argue based on the following legitimate definitions:Determinism - The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs and the nature of the universe (physical forces).Free Will - The philosophical doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses independant personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.Compatabilists argue that they can reconcile the terms to suggest that people have free will despite being determined beings. In this debate I will illustrate that this can only be done through defining 'free will' in such a way that it contradicts with determinism, thereby making Compatibilism a flimsy philosophy (I like to call it determinism lite). Essentially I think it's a cop out so that people feel less threatened by the concept of determinism. My opponent can post an opening argument in Round 1 if he/she so chooses. They may opt to wait until Round 2, but it would probably make more sense for them to open the debate by justifing the compatibility of the agreed upon terms, considering to me the definitions alone seem self-evidently opposite. However I don't mind beginning the debate. It's up to you, challenger :) I look forward to a very interesting debate. Thank you and good luck.
Tablets should replace textbooks

My opponent hasn't posted an argument, so I'll I'll throw down some quick additional points without too much formality. Hopefully my opponent will return for their next round. _____________ - Textbooks don't require batteries, a Wi-Fi connection, or special storage conditions other than 'not wet'. This makes them more durable in terms of use. People in remote areas without power or internet deserve the ability to learn and have access to information. - This characteristic also makes textbooks better for long-term storage. The rapidly escalating obsolescence of technology means that attempting to store data long-term requires regular upgrades and maintenance. In the case of servers, it is also expensive and requires cooling towers, full-time staff and infrastructure. Books don't have this problem. We have found books throughout history that haven't been cared for, and do not require firmware updates or attempts to backwards-build the technology used to make them in order to gain access. Although archives do typically use filtered air and have numbered shelves, this and the staff are pretty much the extent of the costs involved. - Provided they are secured in a bomb-proof shelter, books are invulnerable to attack; no technological/cyber warfare can shut them down. They can't be hacked. And if you give one to every person or airdrop them in, then they're untraceable. - Great for zombie apocalypses. - Smell delicious.
Tablets should replace textbooks

Tablets should replace textbooks for many of reasons. One of the main reasons is because almost everything in today's society revolves around technology. Moving material from print on paper, to a .pdf file seems like a smarter choice with the way technology advances. We continue to progress and advance in technology, we also continue to obtain new information about other things around us. With a tablet not only do we help the students, we also help the environment.Now for the factional information:The average tablet consist of storage space between 8 gigabytes to 64 gigabytes. If a student gets an 8 gigabyte tablet they have 6 gigabytes for user content. This gives the student the ability to hold 80 applications, leaving additional space for at least 10 movies, or 800 songs, or 6,000 books. (http://www.ehow.com...). So when the devices is finally set up the student should have his or her texts books for each class, and have plenty of space left over for notes, and anything else the school permits them to have on their devices. You've also eliminated the amount of textbooks and paper work needed to be printed off for the school. Plus E-textbooks on tablets cost 50% to 60% less than the average textbook (http://www.electronista.com...).Tablets also help students learn more information in a shorter amount of time. Not only is it helping the student prepare for a world surrounded by technology but it is teaching students to use their most efficient source of information According to the US Department of Education and studies by the National Training and Simulation Association students who have technology-based information learn the information given anywhere from 30% to 80% faster than average (http://www.fcc.gov...).You can now take the floor. :P
Mock Presidential Debate

The health care system needs to be fixed. It is directly involved with the physical well-being of every American citizen, which may make this issue of more vital importance than any other. There are 50 million uninsured people in the country today. Their ranks are equal to the combined populations of Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming. (1) That's 25 states. Half of the states in the country. But because this diaspora is not represented in an entity such as a state, they are largely ignored. We certainly wouldn't deny half of the nation (in terms of states) access to healthcare, so why are we denying a population equal to the population of half the states hospital treatment and medicine? Obamacare is stupid. The problem is that people can't afford healthcare, and Obamacare is just telling them "now you're forced to buy healthcare." People on the far right need to accept that, unless they're paid more, many people can't afford healthcare on their own. People on the far left need to accept that people may want different policies, and so even if government-sponsored healthcare becomes communal, you can't breed out private sector insurance. " It"s time to learn from a nation like Singapore, which spends 4 percent of GDP on health care and gets as good or better results than we do spending 17 percent. Singapore"s blend of market forces, public provision and personal responsibility shows it is possible to do more with less." (1) 1 - http://www.pbmp.org...
Mock Presidential Debate

Right, so, the moderator has, due to unforeseen circumstances, become otherwise engaged, and in addition has posted questions that were not of the expected variety. I have posted new prompts in the comments section, the first of which, immigration policy, will be the subject of Round 2. It is an important goal of the Bull Moose Party (and, hopefully, everyone else) to repair our severely damaged immigration system. The primary way which we believe that this can be accomplished is by passing the DREAM Act, the tenets of which I will go over presently. "Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service." (1) Essentially, the DREAM Act seeks to give people who are Americans, but who don't have the paperwork to prove it, the citizenship that they deserve. Most of the people in question were brought to the United States as babies or small children who had no say in the matter and who very likely didn't know what was going on, They have spent most of their lives in the U.S., and are culturally American, but due to an unfair legal label are unable to have many of the things that other Americans do. It is the firm belief of the Bull Moose Party that every American deserves citizenship, regardless of their parents' choices. "Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant." (1) The other significant focus of the Bull Moose Party concerning immigration is to revise the excessively convoluted bureaucratic mess that is the visa system. Visas are difficult to get, take a long time to get, are a ton of paperwork, are expensive, and after going through the process, people can still be denied in favor of others. The Bull Moose Party seeks to introduce common sense and efficiency into this sector of the immigration system. Source 1 - https://dreamact.info... Bull Moose Party website - http://www.pbmp.org...
Mock Presidential Debate

This will be a mock presidential debate. Each debater will choose a real political party of the United States (or argue as an independent) and answer questions asked by the debate moderator (TheChristian) who will post said questions in the comments. Round 1 will be for rules, acceptance, and statement of political party, rounds 2, 3, and 4 will be for answering the moderator's questions, and round 5 will be for closing statements. Debaters cannot argue for lack of government (anarchy, chaos, etc.). Debaters participate as themselves, not as real political figures. It is expected that debaters take this seriously and not debate for ridiculous views, such as extermination of all rabbits, immediate nuclear war with Russia, etc. I will be debating on the Progressive Bull Moose ticket.
That religions like Christianity and Islam are not responsible for any conflict.

Thank you for accepting the challenge, even though you dont truly believe in your stance. (its always good to avoid a personal fight while debating) THe locations of various religions are not the cause of the strife. Take for example in Jerusalem. It is the center of three religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Nowhere in the various guides (Torah, Bible, Koran) does it say that the followers of said religions are to fight over these locations. Take for example the crusades (once again). THe various Popes and Imams of the East and West called for the capture of Jerusalem and other important sites in the Mid-East. This wasnt called for by religion, but rather the leaders of the religions. It was all about where and how they could gain political power. The Pope could say that he was sending every soldier in Europe to take back the land for Christ, but that doesnt mean that the religion advocates it. The various Gods of religion never say to kill in their name. THe various religious leaders just used it as an excuse to command the most powerful armies in the world.
That religions like Christianity and Islam are not responsible for any conflict.

Religion is not the cause of any strife or conflict in the world. Rather it is the nutjobs that say that their God wants them to kill people. Religion didnt cause the Crusades, that was extremism that resulted in a mis-interpretation. Religion did not cause the current wars that we are in now. Crazy people with guns and bombs caused them. The majority of religions advocate the following ideas: dont murder others, love your neighbors, love your enemies, etc. THe negative needs to prove that it was religion, not people, that have caused all of the "religious"-strife in the world.