BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

Hate to break it to you, but in a study conducted by Steven Levitt at the University of Chicago, he completely disproved the idea that the level of school determines success by analyzing a great deal of data from a Chicago school study. He determined that the students who made As at the poor schools also made As at the good schools and vice-versa. He determined that there is no correlation between student success and the level of school the child attends. Instead, he says that genetic factors and parental factors are the greatest determining factors. Mostly genetic though. And I am sorry if I sound unempathetic, but if a person fails to complete high school, they are stupid and I do not want to support them. Really, if a person does not do the three basic requirements for escaping poverty, I do not have any respect for them to want MY tax dollars going to help them pay for their lifestyles. And no, the government has no responsibility to the children of poor schools or rich schools, poor children or rich children, poor adults or rich adults. People are responsible for themselves, and allowing the government to support these people does nothing more than create a welfare state in which people have no incentive to better themselves. Furthermore, yes children are being taught that it is impossible to escape poverty and that THEY are OWED aid. I live in a relatively poor area and have lived in even poorer. The poor people just want aid. Even more, I once saw a woman pay for two hundred dollars worth of brand name food and say, "I just can't get out of here without spending no money". Between the poor grammar and terrible attitude, I wanted to cry.
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

To clarify my statement, I think that socioeconomic factors is one of the primary factors that determines how many opportunities a person will have in there future. While I do agree that graduating high school, getting a job, and wait to get married to have children are essential factors for being able to escape poverty, for people with a low socioeconomic status, these things are easier said than done. Lets face it, Since the end of the recession in Summer 2009, all the job growth has gone to adults who went on to college. There has been a decline in jobs for high school grads and non-grads respectively. I think there are several implications of this labor market outcome. Without access to jobs this makes it near impossible for high school graduates to live independently without the help of welfare. When you live are forced to go to a failing school that do not have the resources that are essential for giving students a quality education. We have hundreds of thousands of kids trapped in failing schools where more than 90 percent of the kids can"t read or do math at basic proficiency levels. I do not think that child rearing is to blame for this phenomenon. A child that goes to school for 7 hours a day, five days a week should have no reason for performing at these levels. The government should have more responsibility for fixing these schools or sending them to higher performing schools. Studies show that It turns out that these mostly minority , poor or low-achieving students learning really soared when they attended higher-quality schools. I also greatly disagree that parents in poverty teach there children that there is no way out of poverty. Many of these parents are powerless to help their children, especially since the government is not helping them the way they should be. These parents want the best for their children and they don't want them to repeat the mistakes that they made that kept them in poverty. Without access to full time jobs, quality education, and help from the government for these children, I can understand how they think turning to crime is the only way to support themselves. Don't you think that the government owes a responsibility to these children?
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

Firstly, I need clarification. Are you stating that socioeconomic factors are the only influence of the amount of opportunity or just a primary one. Judging by your statement, I can only assume that it is the only one. I am going to argue that rearing and will power also effect the number of opportunities. In America, studies show that you are seventy percent more likely to escape poverty if you do three things: Graduate high school (big surprise there) Wait until 21 to get married and have children (well that doesn't sound hard) and here is the kicker...you have to work a full time job! It is truly no wonder people have such a hard time escaping poverty when these things are required of them (that was sarcasm by the way) We may not have the most social mobility in this country, nor do we have the best equality of wealth, but we do have some of each. If I was a betting man, I would say that college education is a huge determining factor in success. Yes, they must graduate high school to get there. It provides people the opportunity to get a well paying job in whichever field they enjoy the most. Granted, people are stupid and major in utter crap like psychology or philosophy with little income outside of college. However, if a poor person goes to college, in college no matter how cheap, they have a great chance of moving out of poverty, even if they have to take on debt. College is an investment and sometimes you have to invest on margin to get there. However, in some societies, parents raise their children to expect things from others. They teach them that they have no hope, that they are slaves to poverty. This is the sad truth: parents of poor children teach their children that they are the victims of society. With this upbringing, it is no wonder that children think that it is okay to get pregnant or get someone pregnant at sixteen, to drop out of high school, to steal or kill, to take on welfare and not get a job. Yes, socioeconomic have some effect, but rearing also has a huge role to play.
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

Socioeconomic factors definitely determine how many opportunities a child has in their future. Education is a key factor for the opportunities a child will have in their future. A child's Socioeconomic status determines the availability of a quality of education. In the U.S there is large inequalities in the funding of public schools. Many children who need the education the most are forced to go to underachieving and sometimes unaccredited schools. If you walk into these schools, you can already figure out what kind of future a child will have receiving this kind of education. In fact, there have been studies that schools in poverty stricken or minority neighborhoods actually seem to have a school-to-prison pipeline. Situations where a simple offense can lead to jail for children as young as 7 are common in schools in these neighborhoods. It seems that instead of trying to prepare these children for college, they are preparing them for prison. Most likely a child born to poor, uneducated parents will have a steep hill to climb if the wan to get out of that pattern, and the government is not doing enough to help them.
Texas secession

This debate seems to come down to legality. My opponent seems to like the idea, but believes it is illegal. Secession is legal. Many of the states would never have joined the union in the first place if they had ever thought that secession would not be an option. They seem never to have discussed the issue at the constitutional convention. I believe it was obvious. Imagine joining any sort of organization, and at some point wished to leave. Only THEN the other members inform you that you can't leave. Secession is not banned in the constitution, and according to the X amendment, all powers not granted to the federal government are "reserved to the states!" If a power is not TAKEN from the states in the constitution they still have it. This includes secession as reserved to the states. My opponent argues that the supreme court has ruled against secession. That may be, but they have no say in the matter. They are not given in the constitution any legislative power, nor power to amend the constitution, and therefore can only apply law, not make it as they often try to do. The supreme court is, in fact, a large reason we need to leave! The third argument is that, even if secession is against the law, it can still be justifiable. In the revolutionary war, revolution was "illegal", yet we all agree that they were right. As all the founders understood, when government becomes tyrannical it is not only justifiable for the citizens to throw down their current government, it is their duty. This argument would justify throwing down the government and setting up a new one. However, we don't have to do anything that drastic. We can regain our liberty without bloodshed by simply leaving the union. My opponent argues that there would, in fact be bloodshed. I disagree. What president in this day and age would order that invasion? If he did, he could only do it for 60 days without the consent of congress. Do you really think they will agree to that? Even if government commanded the attack, how many U.S. soldiers would carry out the command? It would not happen. The separation would be peaceful. Taking into account how few soldiers would fight in the event of war, and how many people would flock to Texas, I don't think you can be so sure that they would lose. Also, I really don't think you can ever say Texas is "outgunned!" Even if there was war, freedom is worth it. Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... give me liberty, or give me death! My argument is based on the principal of the consent of the governed. If we are held in this nation by force, clearly this principal is dead. No room for quotes. Thought I would have 2 speeches Correction: 25% wanted to secede as of 2014. After Cruz dropping out, many, like me, will understand the need. I ask that any new arguments my opponent brings up in his speech be ignored, as I cannot respond. Please stand with me for liberty! God bless Texas!
Texas secession

As I said before, I am glad to have accepted this challenge, and would like to state I am a Pro-Alabamian Secession. Mainly due I'm from Alabama and would follow it wherever it goes(unless it commits some atrocity). But I accepted this as I wanted to challenge myself on why a state cannot 'LEGALLY' secede. Definitions:Legal - Permitted by lawSecede - Wit draw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organizationIllegal - Forbidden by lawNow, of coarse you might be wondering why I brought up the word 'Legal? ' Well it is mainly due with the belief that Texas is the only state that can "legally" secede. Which of coarse if ignorant enough, I would believe that too, but to say that isn't true. Sadly. .. It has been proved that Texas cannot secede legally, nor any other state. This happened in the Texas v. White Case in the Supreme Court, after Texas claimed back original jurisdiction over itself, the Court then stated, "The Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were 'absolutely null'. "So in the end, even if Texas tried to secede, it would be illegal, and would then classify it as an illegal secession. Which would then make them an unrecognized cause, thus causing the destruction of Texas itself, and/or causing the next American Civil War. Which would be just as bloody as the first American Civil War, and pointless. While yes, Texas could put up a fight, it wouldn't have the support by any nation due to illegally seceding, but in the end Texas would lose due to being outmaneuvered, outgunned, and out tacticed. So it is best to stay united rather then split. Questions Towards Opponent 1. Whose to say the current Texas Government doesn't have corruption, and the seceding one as well?2. Could you explain Illegal Immigrants are harming Texas(yes I know they harm), but I need evidence how they harm Texas.3. Do you have any proof to back this opionated argument of yours?4. Can you tell me the percentage for how many Texans actually want to secede(cause I can, cause I researched)? Fun Fact- Only about 18% of Texans actually want to secede. So your argument wouldn't appeal most Texans. Sorry. .. Remember People to Vote Con, and good luck to my opponent to support his oppionated statement so far. Sources. http://www.dallasnews.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Texas secession

Now that Ted Cruz has dropped from the presidential race, we are faced with the certainty that whichever way the election goes, we will have a tyrant in the white house. The fact that one party has nominated a criminal, and the other an immoral egomaniac who is only looking for power, shows that this nation is almost, if not absolutely, beyond saving. The ignorant masses are dragging the few sane members of society down the drain with them. There is however, a happy coincidence. There is one state where the vast majority still cling to the principals our nation was founded on. This state is large enough to welcome all who wish to join her. This state just so happens to be the one state with an almost unquestioned right to secede from the union. That state is Texas. The lifeboat of freedom. Many years ago when governments were corrupt, people fled to America. Now America itself is becoming corrupt. The only remaining coarse is to separate. Time is growing short. Not only is the nation destroying itself from within, it is damaging our way of escape. The largest example of this is illegal immigration. The federal government has not only failed to protect it's borders, it has stopped Texas from doing it itself. Not only could Texas survive on it's own, it could survive better on it's own. Those spreading the corruption will be happy to see us go. We wish to be free. This is why I strongly urge that the great state of Texas should secede from the union!
Texas secession

Rebuttal and ConclusionRebuttalClearly stated by Brion McClanahan, "Scalia argued that a the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the 'constitutional' basis of secession had been 'resolved by the Civil War,' and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line 'one nation, indivisible'. "This meaning and stating that any chance of secession is hereby illegal by law, and by even by our own Constitution. While yes the Declaration of Independence clearly states, "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and could alter or abolish government 'destructive' of those rights. " This does not mean it is legal, like you have stated, it just means that it is a right. So either way it would clearly still be illegal, and Texas would be an unrecognized state. Furthermore as I stated in my argument about states rights to secede, which said this, "The Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were 'absolutely null'. " Which means the X Amendment would not apply to secession, since it would be nullified immediately by the Federal Court. As I stated before with the Texas v. White Case, which was brought to the Supreme Court in the end proved secession is illegal, and was helped backed by the American Civil War years prior as evidence. Which tears down your argument on "legal secession. "I argue bloodshed out of opinion, as the Federal Government wouldn't openly allow a state to secede from the Union. Of coarse they would take measures to try and stop there from being bloodshed by asking for piece, but in the end there would be some. ConclusionFurthermore he failed to answer my questions such as, "Do you have any proof to back this opinionated argument of yours? " Which in the end, for his failure to answer my questions, makes his argument invalid, and therefore unacceptable, and destroys his whole case!
Is feminism an equality or women superiority

I partially agree with your statement about that not so many feminist pay attention to "actual problems that women in Islamic countries have to face". But there're still many women who try to make us pay the attentions to the problems of Middle East, gay, trans, etc. Yet it's far beyond their abilities to make an actual change in women rights in Middle East simply because they are not there. It should be someone who actually live there to be brave and take a stand for their rights. So they fight for equality in the country there're living, for instance, US (or other country) where Rape Culture is still exist. Statistically every 98 seconds American woman is sexually assaulted. And this is a lot and unacceptable. Women should get the right to wear whatever they want and not to be abused on the way home or at work.
Is feminism an equality or women superiority

First off I hope we can both agree that women in the west before 1980 were less privileged then men. Same goes with women in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries today. Also can we keep this debate as civil as possible. The reason why I am not a feminist is because they fight for non-existent problems (ex. The Gender Wage Gap and a Rape Culture in America) while totally ignoring actual problems that women in Islamic countries have to face (ex. An actual Rape Culture and Genital Mutilation). They say that they fight for trans, gay, and women in Islamic countries rights, when in reality they just whine on tumblr about Republicans, Manspreading, Mansplaning, and how sexism against men is non-existent.
Is feminism an equality or women superiority

On one side many men consider feminism to be a "religion" of fat lesbians whom men don't want. They think that feminists hate man, etc, etc. On the other side many feminists are beautiful women who have compassion for girl and women all over the world who don't have basic human rights - right not to be used as an object, not to be sold in slavery, right to freedom, etc. Women should have all those rights, yet they don't. So technically this is equality but a women equality with men.
ALM( ALL LIVES MATTER) members needed

I write "red lives matter",Even "fish lives matter",But the Fish don't matter when it's dunked in batter,When the black paint overpowers other colors in the splatter,The blacks gets smarter while the cops get fatter,So the whitescops can't chase and catch to arrest,Because there's a cholesterol filled caucasian heart under their vests,So instead of chasing these n***ers they don't work out, they invest,In getting guns, 'cause a bullet's yet to be outrun by the best...Shoot the black man 'cause the cops run the city,Yeah they shoot the black man 'cause his negro curls aint pretty,Yeah these cops are so corrupt, their guns are all ready to fire,Why even call these guys police they should be named 'hitmen for hire',You see you can say that white lives matter and it's true that they do,You can say that black lives matter but the cops don't think it too,So before you keep on writing in some more poetic a** crap,Please can you make it f***ing rhyme and make a half decent rap.
ALM( ALL LIVES MATTER) members needed

"It is raining blood today. I open my book and write "Black Lives Matter" to acknowledge the unanswered injustices. I write "Blue Lives Matter" for how can any human be separate from humanity? I write "All Lives Matter" but stare at these words. Do they invalidate the others? I do not know. I am only a love poet. I stand conflicted but the clouds continue to bleed. I come to erase the phrase but find that the blood has already drowned my words." R13; Kamand Kojouri
Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use

Can you really be so selfish as to deny a dying man or woman the right to a peaceful and pain free death. As a rebuttal to my opponents arguments: 1. "Party A fakes a disease to get the drug Party A then sells drug to party B" What my opponent is automatically assuming is that doctors do not have either the integrity to prescribe the MEDICINE to people who actually need it or they are just to stupid to realize when someone is faking symptoms to legally obtain an illegal substance. 2. "Party A sells marijuana to party B who overdoses, and dies. " Here my opponent simply is stating the impossible, it is IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on Marijuana. There has never been a single documented case IN HISTORY of someone who has overdosed or died from the use of the Cannabis Sativa plant. 3. "Party A goes to a different hospital/pharmacy and gets a different prescription for a pain killer 1 month later party A refills his prescription for the marijuana based drug and sells to party C who has negative side effects. " First, I would like to know what negative side effects party C would be suffering from after the use of the excess Marijuana, but I had trouble understanding the line of events in my opponents third example. Also my opponent says that with the legalization of medicinal Marijuana the illegal drug trade would increase. I disagree on the simple grounds that people who already illegally use Marijuana will still get it from whoever they get it from or if they actually need the herb for medical reasons they could get a prescription and get it legally which would actually decrease the amount of people illegally obtaining Marijuana.
Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use

Marijuana should not be legalized for medicinal use, just because it relieves pain. The drug in mention might relieve pain, but also would harm the body, and cause more threatening side effects to the patient. Since marijuana does do harm to the body while relieving pain, patients should instead try pain killers that do less damage to the body. On another note By legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, the percentage of illegal marijuana trade would go up drastically. Drug dealers could possibly fake illnesses to get said drug, or people with illnesses that requires said drug would get the drug and sell excess drugs to another party. examples of drug dealing through legalization of medicinally used marijuana Party A fakes a disease to get the drug Party A then sells drug to party B another example Party A has ms and gets subscribed a marijuana based drug Party A sells marijuana to party B who overdoses, and dies. Party A goes to a different hospital/pharmacy and gets a different prescription for a pain killer 1 month later party A refills his prescription for the marijuana based drug and sells to party C who has negative side effects cycle repeats through the whole **** alphabet