BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
modern technology

Most technologies provide great benefits up to a certain point. Weapons can be used for hunting or self defense. Medicine saves lives. Electronics provide unparalleled information transfer, storage, and gathering. Vehicles provide excellent transportation. However, those same technologies, if taken farther or made too widespread, induce unparalleled laziness and the, metaphorically speaking, Devolution of the society we live in. Weapons are now used more for crime and shows of force than for hunting or defense. Machinery once used for sustenance farming is used to reap profits and push smaller farmers out of business. Medical technology is used for "better" drugs that will make businesses a bigger profit, and to keep alive people that, as sad as it is, will never recover, and merely place a drain on their families and others around them. Computers discourage movement and proper language skills. People today are less in-shape(My 70 year old grandfather is more in shape than most 20 year olds today), less literate, more rude(from the veil of anonymity the Internet gives), more self-entitled, and more lazy than likely ever before, and crimes run rampant as people try to get better and better "toys" from others. In short, the luxuries that modern technology provides does provide benefits, but in it's most modern forms, most of it provides more downside, in the form of making us "soft", self-entitled, greedy, rude, and arrogant.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Question 1: If desegregation wasn't a court-order than who would of ordered desegregation and what would of happened? Would we now have a black president or would he be white? Question 2: Who was boycotting and building riots, was it the whites? Couldn't the whites just cooperate? Question 3: If it was hard for courts to desegregate students when ordered by the courts do you think adults would of cooperate if the court-ordered to desegregate or would more violence occur?
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative Assertion #1: In 1974 courts " ordered busing was only strategy that could have a desegregated Boston"s public schools. Evidence 1: Neighborhood separated by race and kids went to neighborhood schools. Evidence 2: Boston school committee built new schools but they were still segregated. Evidence 3: There was no law saying that kids couldn"t go to outside their neighborhood schools. Affirmative Assertion #2: Students and society benefit when more children are able to attend racially integrated schools. Evidence 1: Do better academically social, psychological experience. Evidence 2: People need to learn how to get along in the real world. Evidence 3: There"s no pre-dominate group we are all equal. Affirmative Assertion #3: Courts have the power to reduce the effect of racial discrimination. Evidence 1: Judge Garrity told Boston students they would have to be bused; this had to be obeyed Evidence 2: The police were used to reinforce Garrity"s decision. Evidence 3: Schools were run by the court and eventually desegregated
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

negative assertion #1 : court- ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. Evidence: there was a lot of violence because of desegration. Evidence: protest were held against federal building Evidence: school buses are getting attacked by the whites negative assertion #2 : courts are powerless to combat prejudice Evidence: schools are being boycott Evidence: protest of inequality by the people Evidence: students are attacking the balck students with rocks on buses Negative assertion #3: schools should not be used as battlegrounds to adress inequality and discrimination. Evidence: mayor goes to homes where parents dont agree with the plan Evidence: school commitee fights against trying to keep races balanced Evidence: lawsuits against commitee
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Response to Assertion 1) If the court-order did more harm than good we would still be desegregrated. Violence did occur but it got the United States better opportunities. Blacks now have an equal chance as white students the same education. Response to Assertion 2) Courts don"t have the power to combat prejudges people but if they do have the power to make change for those who don"t have equal opportunities they have to make justice for those who rights aren"t given. Students boycotting would only affect themselves not other if they were boycotting they were losing their own education the only attention they were going to get is the one is the low non-graduating classes. The only reason for the protest of inequality by the people was because some students weren"t getting the same education as others. Response to Assertion 3) First of all battlegrounds? The only reason there was violence was because of the parents and students the courts didn"t the law they enforced it. Many other mediums were tried but none work school desegregation was an easier way to help everybody equal. The mayor was an enforcer and was only being a good mayor in helping the people who didn"t agree to understand why the court-ordered it. The only reason the school committee was fighting was because mostly everybody in the school committee was white and their children were the ones going to the schools that were being desegregated.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

I contradict assertion 1: I disagree that busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated boston public schools because if the neighborhoods where separated by race and kids went to neighborhood schools than the solution was to build new schools to create desegregation not segregation. Also if there was no law saying that kids couldn"t go to outside their neighborhood schools than busing wasn"t the only strategy. Kids could have had any other type of transpertstion or walk if they reallly wanted to. The problem wasn"t the strategy , they just tried to cut down any strategy and oppurtunity to the students causing discrimination. I disagree with assertion 2: how can a student benefit more when children are able to attend racially integrated schools. Yes, I believe they benefit in education, friends and happiness from students and parents that they are no longer segregated. But it doesn"t go deeper than that nothing psychological about it. Yes like you said people are equal so what difference doesn"t make if your with a group of either white or black .. ? Assertion 3: yes I agree that courts have the power to reduce the effect of racial discrimination only because they are above us, but the community and society have the power and make the decision for the court. The fact that the police had to be used shows how they had no power or control over the people. Schools were handled by the court yes, but why did this even all start? It came to the courts attention because of a fustrated society who wanted justice to be done. Other than that it wasn"t on the courts mind to take control and get something done. Yes the judge tried to calm people down by ordering busing , this was just a trick to keep the people blinded from what actually they were hiding, the discrimination towards the people. The prove clearly how the committee was all white.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer 1: If busing wasn"t used and another method was used would it be safer than busing. Busing was a court-order and wasn"t an option. Answer 2: The court did have the power because if they hadn"t ordered to desegregate who would of, the school district didn"t agree they would left just how it was. Answer 3 : We are based on facts not personal opinions girl. The benefit that children would have had was to grow up with the experience and knowledge of other cultures that wasn"t their own.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

1) If desegregation wasnt a court-ordered decision the community the people would come together and would order desegregation because they are the ones who were experiencing it. it woulde of caused a change because the people were the ones who pushed the courts and im sure nothing would of be different today. either a white president or a black like today. 2) the whites werent coperating, not all some where against it and used violencwe against the blacks to keep them from protesting the discrimination. the blacks were protesting ion good and the whites were hitting buses with rocks in vain. 3) it was hard for courts to desegregate because they were being attacked from both sides.. people who were against and pro to what was happening. i do think adults would of cooperated if the court ordered desegregation because either way if the cort ordered it some were happy about it and other try to change it. many with violence but as time passed the violence would have to decrease.
Kalam Cosmological Argument Does Not Prove God(s) Exist

Yes but all of you're facts can consist a chance if you really think about it if there is no "God" or anything that couldn't create the universe it would just mean we have evolved but if we're talking about how no god has made the universe well anything in this universe would just had happened and if you think about what is in the universe than it can change your mind for example water, Water is a colour less tasteless thing that had just been discovered? And if we just evolved than how would we know that this is what we need unless something "God" proven to let the world know. Another thing that proves that everything just happened is that our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when you look at such a complexity, Either how each individual planet is and things inside the planets its to much for it to just "Happen"
Kalam Cosmological Argument Does Not Prove God(s) Exist

I will attempt to keep my argument concise, As I don't see a need for a long winded one. 1) Every effect we can observe appears to have had a cause, But this doesn't necessarily mean every cause has an effect. Perhaps the universe itself is eternal and therefore there was no original cause for its existence. We don't know either way, And currently have no way of ruling it in or out. 2) Even if a cause is required, The cause could be anything, Including but not limited to a multi-verse. This may push the original causation back a step, Possibly into an infinite regression, But this is not a valid reason to just make something up - aka God(s). 3) Occam's Razor - a natural universe created via natural means is simpler than a natural universe created by supernatural means. The Kalam argument by itself is fallacious because it assumes causal relationships, And it also asserts the universe had one. Neither of these are demonstrable or otherwise evident. This argument becomes even further fallacious when the cause is assumed to be a God or Gods. This is certainly not demonstrable or evident, And it begs the question of its/their causal origins. All around this is just a bad argument for religious apologists.
Kalam Cosmological Argument Does Not Prove God(s) Exist

Kalam Cosmological Argument:Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, The universe has a cause. Religious apologists from this point will extrapolate further and argue the cause is a God or Gods. To prevent an infinite regression of causation, They will argue that the God or Gods are eternal/infinite and never began to exist, Therefore, They are excluded from the Kalam argument. I will be arguing against the Kalam argument, My opponent will be arguing for the Kalam argument. Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Rebuttals/ConclusionsGood luck!
The Christian God (as stated by the Bible) exists.

Alas, it is time once again for another exciting and riveting cliche debate that everyone enjoys oh-so much. My opponent is affirming the existence of the Christian god of the Bible. Seeing as he is making the affirmation, he also has the burden of proof, or the responsibility to show what he affirms is true. So, I'll leave that to my opponent. Note: Don't find a way to turn this into a semantics debate, that's not the point. Please provide reasonable arguments, and PLEASE know what you are talking about before accepting this debate. Look forward to it. Thanks.
The Christian God (as stated by the Bible) exists.

I will be using the Bible as a source, as well as a few unexplained things. I look forward to our debate. 1." Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done… " Isaiah 48:3, 5 This is stating that God is obviously the only God, and no one can come close to His power. This obviously shows he exists. 2. "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 2:23-24 This is showing that he is unkind to those who mock Him, as He is almighty. Though these children are now in Satan's clutches. But who could have done that besides the Lord Himself? 3. Divine Healing A spiritual bond with Him is one if the ways to happiness, and when one has happiness, he finds that much is better in life. He has a reason to live, a reason to be here. One finds themselves miraculously refreshed, and a newfound point in life. This "invisible" object, or idol, is real and with a bond with said person. 4. The Creation of the Universe How did the universe come to be? Well, He made it. The Big Bang simply does not make sense. How could there be nothing between many things? It's simply too much to fathom. So, He, our Lord, made the Universe. You may state that how could He exist with nothing to exist in, but this is a paradox and beside the point. What this statement says is that this is further proof there is a higher being. 5. Humans in General Humans need something to believe in. It's within our nature. However, how could this nature come to be? We could not start this ourselves. We were designed in a certain way, of course with differences. This accounts for the creation and nature of humans. We were designed in His image, His way.
Obama is president of the U.S.

Obama has the final word though, he can fire her at any moment. Also an embassy does not make up the U.S. so your arguement is invalid. Id like to thank my opponant for actually debating this joke of a subject. But please prove he is not the president of the united states, not its embassys, he has word over that too but thats not what were talking about and hillary is secretary of foriegn affairs ut does not have the final word.
The human being is utterly weak.

The statement itself was extremely vague as to just what is meant by weak. The statement was that the human being is weak, this generalization infers that you are considering the species as a whole. You also say "we humans are weak" again referring to our species. The dictionary defines Weak as "lacking the power to perform physically demanding tasks; lacking physical strength and energy". there have been many examples of real live human beings perform a variety of strenuous and physically demanding tasks completely un assisted. John Holtum for example was able to catch a 20 lb cannonball fired at point blank range as part of a circus act in the 1840's without dying. He was most certainly not weak by any stretch. http://www.thehumanmarvels.com... By definition human beings are not weak. If we are not talking about the species as a whole then I am happy to provide individual examples. otherwise I'm not sure what is left.
The human being is utterly weak.

Nice try but you try to argue using the species of human beings. First off, I am not speaking about the species. Even if I took your argument into consideration, how in the world does just living for hundred thousandth years make human beings contrary to weak. They are smart but still are weak. They have limits. Just because they outsmarted other species on earth does not make them less weak. It seems that you failed to comprehend the statement. Human beings, left alone, don't know what is good for them. They might all democratically ponder about something and in the end fail to understand the truth. Human beings are weak in that they don't know much. They are ignorant. They are easily deceived. They are easily killed. They are easily shaped into thinking and acting in a particular way. The human being is weak. Humans are weak because they can be killed no matter what. If that can be said of any living thing, aren't they weak. Let me ask you, why do people die? (give a teleological answer) Assume humans were given the most ideal life; no diseases, no illnesses, no stress, no worries, no hunger and no thirst. Why would they eventually age and die. Is it just a life cycle. Is it natural. If that is the limit of "our" knowledge, that makes "us" ignorant. We humans are weak. As I told you, this is a fact that you cannot comprehend. Whatever you say is futile. I will appreciate you futile efforts though.
The human being is utterly weak.

It is believed by many that Homo Sapiens have Existed on this planet for around 100,000 years. A species does not survive that long by being "weak". http://www.nhm.ac.uk... While human beings may lack the physical strength of many of our animal counterparts, the core strength of mankind is it's mind. People have the ability to use tools, to create buildings, weapons etc to make themselves stronger. This strength of the mind is what has human's atop the food chain despite all it's attempts to wipe itself off the face of the planet. People have been actively fighting and slaughtering each other since mankind came into existence yet we continue to not only survive but to flourish and grow exponentially. This is not the sign of a weak or inferior species. "The human being can be killed no matter what", this could be said of any living thing. By this logic, it would seem that all living things are "weak". Anything living can be killed anytime, whether by a man with a shotgun, a natural disaster or a natural predator. Life is fragile but that does not make us weak. A fact is something that has irrefutable evidence supporting it. I am not sure your statement meets that burden of proof.
The human being is utterly weak.

I would like to stick to the topic which was "human beings are utterly weak" Humans being plural, utterly meaning completely or 100%, and weak meaning lacking in physical strength. If this was not what you meant then this should not have been your statement. Asking how things die is a distraction from the topic. All living things die eventually, this does automatically equate to them being weak or fragile. Since you have not cited examples as to how humans are weak by whatever your definition is, I must take your statement at face value. you say humans plural are utterly (completely) and I already defined weak. If you were to take a random sample size of humans you would find that not all are weak. Again I am taking your statement at face value and going off what evidence and examples have been given.
The human being is utterly weak.

By "weak" I was not talking about the species nor physically. However, even if I considered them, they are weak. You might provide evidence that the strongest human did something incredible, but that is not a proof of human strength. Humans being are weak. Let me help you because I sympathize for you; for your futile efforts. Answer the question: why do people die? (give a teleological answer). Assume humans were given the most ideal life; no diseases, no illnesses, no stress, no worries, no hunger and no thirst. Why would they eventually age and die.
Spit vs. Semen for Rude People's Food

A shame awesome sauce had to forfeit. I guess all there is to say is vote for con! A vote for con is a vote for semen! http://blundermum.com... (scroll down to the pic of uncle Sam) Now, let this be the day that you ALMOST caught.... Captain.....cheese......dingo..... Thanks to everyone who read and put up with my stupid attempt at humor! And thanks awesome sauce for a great debate!
Spit vs. Semen for Rude People's Food

First of all, i thank Awesome-Sauce for his arguments.1)HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO JIZZ IN A KITCHEN???????????? I mean to jizz you have to be aroused. Unless one has a strange fetish for cooked food, how is one supposed to just jizz on command???????As I said in my third argument, when men jizz, they often don't know what do do with it, such as goin' all american pie and use a sock, or just use a tissue. With this, you can put it IN DOUCHEBAG'S FOOD. That is way better. So, when a dude jizzes, instead of wasting it, save your sperm for rude people's food. I believe you would feel like a f*cking bossUm, when you jizz, you already feel awesome. Now, you know some d*ck will be eating your baby juice. Now THAT, my friends, makes you feel much more accomplished than if you just merely spit. 2) My opponent keeps saying that you jizz right then and there, but I've been saying not to do that and do it before work (or whenever, you know.... you get that "feeling") and put it in a little container, and slip it onto the food when your coworkers aren't looking. Spit, on the other hand, you have to drool over someones food your about to serve, and at least one person will see it. 3)You know what I think is a better use for semen??? Getting yo freak on. Sadly, the love that many men will get is from their hand. So, where better to put it that on a rude dude's food? Read my first rebutle for more.Now, onto my opponent's case.1)My opponent talks about how it is unfair for women, but actually, it is BETTER FOR THEM to put sperm on their food for 2 reasons:A) It gets them points with the dudes.How do women get sperm? From dudes of course. How, do you ask? Well.... I guess you guys already know... But yeah, they get to be able to enjoy themselves with them men, and they get to mess with rude d*ckheads. It's a win win. B) They are not suspected.If somehow the rude people have a very acute sense of taste, they will taste the sperm. Who do they blame? THE GIRL. F*ck no. They will not suspect the women to jizz on their food! Therefore, women cannot get caught unless they are caught in the application of the sperm to the food process.2)Spit is more appropriate to add to the food than semen is Wrong. Spit is gross and absurd, while sperm is nice and tasty. As I said in my first argument, WSA can agree that sperm tastes good and should be used for more than just mouthwash: a nice topping for rude people's food. Spit belongs in the mouth and stay there. Sperm should roam WILD and FREE.I await awesome-sauce's response. Which will certainly not be a SPERMing image of mine!.....ok, I guess it doesn't really work....Thank you