BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should sex Ed be taught at a young age such as 11

Teachers are trained professionals. And I can show you a random adult teaching your child about sex ed, and children will find it. If they dont, they wont develop properly. Youre acting like genitalia are some kind of life changing, shock and awe thing. They are very normal things, not part of the everyday but a big part of your life. You will get over the "He said butt" thing for genitalia. Trust me on that.
Should sex Ed be taught at a young age such as 11

I don't think the pictures are offensive I think that SOME schools go a big to far also I've seen parents I know talk about these letters here's one of THIER opinions I'm allowed to post it "I don't think my child should be concert with having a kid at this age i don't want him to know these facts right now If anything I want my child to learn from me not from a random adult Plus it's even more embarking for them becuase they are usually with the other gender leading to high embaresment I'm not saying completely eliminate this subject but it should be optional if parents aren't ready for their child to learn this plus the name of the debate is if it should be taught at a young age not never any ways this is the last round it's been great debate one with you goodbye
Should sex Ed be taught at a young age such as 11

You make a fine point in round one good job pal I'm trying to keep this a debate not a aggressive argument anyways yes children should learn about this but it should be the parents responsibility or like I said before wait till they are older when they will actually want to have children havering children isn't in a child's mind at 11 years old and in my school they used to put it WAY TO GRAPHIC for the first year I felt like tearing my eyes and ears out they should at least tone it down a little by not saying the ***** goes into the ****** first thing and maybye NOT SHOW PICTURES OF THE ***** and the ****** in full detail like I said the parents should be responsible for their OWN CHILD I gotta go take your best shot
Should sex Ed be taught at a young age such as 11

Sex ed - It has always been more of an awkward topic. But the Victorian view needs to end. Children need to know. Or else they will find out, and it is better to show children things than letting them find out... On the internet. Then parents/teachers get to choose what to show children. Children are curious, and they are rebels. So frowning upon something or refusing to answer a question because it is "too weird" only reinforces this taboo. Puberty starts at age 10-12. It ends at ages 15-17. If you have hormones in your body, children will naturally want to explore those urges. It seems logical to start teaching puberty, before it starts, not after it is over. But as far as a transition to Puberty in the US goes, the US is in the shitters. In 2013 according to US department of Human Services, 3.9% of women ages 15-19 were pregnant. 60% of college students report drinking in the past month, of those two thirds have reported binge drinking in the past month. Over 1 million students in college are assaulted or injured as a result of alcohol. I think we need to be more transparent with children. Put everything on the table and let them decide what happiness means to them.
Should sex Ed be taught at a young age such as 11

NO IT should not not at eleven maybe 14 or 14 but at 11 or below that is an age for kids to learn good stuff and prosper not be disgusted and never feel fully comfortable with themselves again and unless and student asks about safe sex they don't tell you why would young children need to know how to make babies they are like probably 8 or 10 maybe even 15 years from needing a child might as well tell the kids about blowjobs and anal and handjobs
Minorities are not at a disadvantage in American society.

I accept my opponent's challenge, and I will be defending that minorities do face systemic and widespread disadvantages in Education, Policing, and Job Opportunities. For definitions, I define minorities as: a racial, religious, ethnic, or political group smaller than and differing from the larger population in a community, nation, etc http://www.yourdictionary.com... All other definitions I cede to my opponent unless I deem them to be abusive or incredibly inaccurate. Thanks for creating this round, and I will enjoy debating you on this.
Minorities are not at a disadvantage in American society.

This is in regards to 3 main categories. 1. Education - Minorities are given every opportunity to pursue their education just as whites are. 2. Policing - Minorities are not unfairly policed, if anything they are under policed. 3. Job Opportunities - Minorities are not denied jobs simply because of the color of their skin or their race. Now this is not to say that such instances don't occur because they do for every race. The point is that it is neither systemic or widespread. My opponent needs to be able to provide factual proof with sources to validate their position otherwise they would simply be stating their opinions.
The Bible's scientific accuracies.

"The flat circle is consistent with the rest of the verse as the image Isaiah conveyed was that of a dwelling with the heavens serving as the domed roof and the flat circle of the earth as the floor i.e. like a tent. The earth is not a flat circle; therefore, this statement cannot be scientifically accurate." No, he is not talking about a "domed roof" a domed roof implies that it is finite or has limited space. In this verse Isaiah was speaking to how the heavens appeared to him. The vast number of stars is as a covering of our earth. So how do we know Isaiah was not talking about a domed roof as my opponent says he is? Well lets take a look at the verse. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Notice the word "stretches" The Hebrew verb translated "stretches" is in the present tense, meaning that God is still stretching the heavens. If Isaiah was speaking of a "domed roof" then he would have used the verb is its past tense form. If the earth has a domed roof then God would be unable to continue stretching the Heavens. http://www.tomorrowsworld.org... "The universe is still expanding and is not stretched over the earth remaining static. This statement is not scientifically accurate." Refuted above. "Isaiah 40 makes clear the image the prophet wished to convey – a tent; the very word used in the text. This theme is not presented here alone. Ps 19:4, 102:4." In Psalms 19:4 other translations of the Bible speaks of the sun being surrounded by a tabernacle. The chapter goes on comparing the sun with a bridegroom. Is the sun really like a bridegroom? Or is it poetic language? You forget that much of the book of Psalms is written poetically and isn't meant to be taken literally. I don't see the correlation between Psalms 102:4 with a dome. "Isaiah 40 is themed on providing comfort during this time, showing that God has given them a home and they will prevail. No need to extrapolate meaning here, just read the whole chapter" Irrelevant. Just because some of the verses in Isaiah 40 have to with comfort doesn‘t mean that the verse speaking of a spherical earth is inaccurate. "This verse is said to be the first mention of the jet stream, a phenomenon not known until the 1920's. [3]The jet stream does go round and round, unfortunately for Biblical literalists (I prefer the term selectivists), the jet stream goes from east to west, not north to south." The bible is referring to the global winds of earth. Winds often come from the north go south and begin to turn in a south western direction to the equator the wind picks up the heated air and takes it to the north pole then the wind takes the cool air from the North Pole and takes it to the equator and the process goes on. http://kids.earth.nasa.gov...
The Bible's scientific accuracies.

Here are the verses: Isaiah 40:22-He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. I am arguing that these are scientific accuracies spoken of in the Bible years before scientifically proven. My opponent will need to show otherwise.
The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

Unfortunately, my opponent has not addressed any of my contentions or rebuttals in his final round. As such, I will use this time to summarize my arguments and expose the weaknesses in Pro's case. 1. Allows for More Accurate Judging By permitting more members to participate in the judging, indefinite voting periods ensure outcomes correctly reflect the quality of the arguments. My opponent would ask us to ignore this point in favor of more definitive wins, but fails to explain why his position should be preferred over fairness and accuracy. By choosing quantity of victories over quality of judging, he devalues the very wins he encourages. 2. A Defense against "Bombing" Until some form of voter accountability is enacted, our only defense against vote bombing is for unbiased members to cast their votes fairly. This is a process that takes time and a sizable audience, both of which are limited by shorter voting periods. My opponent offers no reasonable defense to this point and it stands as a mark against his position. 3. An Incentive to Participate The ability to vote on a debate acts as considerable motivation for members to read it and participate. By limiting voting periods, this incentive is reduced and community participation lessens. Once again, Pro offers no rebuttal and this argument stands. ::Rebuttals:: My opponent has focused his efforts throughout this debate on a single issue: winning. However, debates with indefinite voting periods face no real issue with outcomes, as debaters, readers, and the DDO record system already recognize point leaders as winners. Pro has invented a non-issue and would sacrifice accuracy, fairness, and participation to resolve it. ::Conclusion:: Pro has explained his dislike for indefinite voting periods but failed to show why they shouldn't exist. In fact, for debaters seeking fair judging, an honest outcome, and outside input, indefinite voting periods are actually the preferred option. For these reasons, I strongly urge a Con vote! Thanks again to my opponent and thanks for reading =D
The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

To sum it all up, the indefinite option in debates should not exist primarily because the whole point of the debates is to determine a winner, and with the option, you can't determine a winner of a debate. What other point of debating is there if you don't know the winner? Just look past all the other reasons and think of the most primary reason why we debate. To win. What other reason is there? So, the option to make to vioting period shouldn't be allowed.
The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

Thankfully, my opponent has maintained the order of the arguments and rebuttals, making this an easy read for all. 1. Allows for More Accurate Judging Pro claims that letting more people vote on debates decreases the accuracy of the voting. If this sounds illogical, that's because it is. Just as studies tend to increase in correctness as their sample size increases [1], so too would debates be judged more fairly if more members get the opportunity to vote. Indefinite voting periods allow for such opportunities, thus increasing the accuracy of judging. Pro's second claim that only members who vote early actually read the arguments is an unsubstantiated assumption. One may postpone voting due to time constraints or may search through older debates out of interest for a particular topic. Ironically, it is placing time restrictions on debates that encourage blind-voting, as members hurry to participate while they still can. 2. A Defense against "Bombing" My opponent suggests shorter time periods prevent vote bombing more so than longer ones. However, given that most bombing occurs shortly after a debate ends (especially since one culprit is usually one of the debaters using multiple accounts), time restraints work only to lessen the likelihood that the situation will be corrected. Swaying votes over to the rightful winner takes time and a large audience, both of which are restricted by Pro's proposition. 3. An Incentive to Participate My opponent is correct in stating that all debates eventually lose their popularity with time. Please note, though, that he does not deny that indefinite voting periods do much to maintain such popularity for far longer than would normally be the case. By allowing new members to participate and continue the discussion, indefinite voting periods benefit the debaters, readers, and the community atmosphere of the site at large. ::Rebuttals:: My opponent only somewhat addressed my rebuttal of his original argument, so I will reiterate. Wins granted by limited voting periods may actually do more harm than good; by capturing only a snapshot of potential voting, limited voting periods reduce community input and increase the likelihood of unjustified wins. Given that debates with indefinite voting periods already provide wins in the form of point totals, Pro's proposal is simply unnecessary. That's all for now and I eagerly await R3. ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

:) I will respond to my opponent's arguments in the order of his case. 1. Actually, the negative effect that my opponent has presented in this case is wrong. In this case, and indefinite voting period would actually affect the outcome of the debate negatively. During the indefinite voting period, "vote-bombers" and other random people could come and randomly vote on whatever they feel like, giving less informed votes. However, usually the people that vote first in the debate usually read the whole entire thing, and then give a well informed vote. Leaving a debate out in the open for anyone to randomly come and vote makes the votes and consequently the debate inaccurate. The people who vote first are more interested in the debate itself; therefore, they will serve to give a better vote. 2. Usually vote bombing makes a debate so "un-balanced" that a few "good" votes can't undo the wrong. However, if you make the voting period shorter, than the chance of vote bombing also decreases as vote bombers don't have the chance to vote bomb the debate. 3. Like it or not, all debates soon fade into the post-voting abyss. There is a period of time when a debate is new and highly anticipated, soon, however, the demand for that and any other debate goes down. It's sort of like a fad; fresh for a few days then disapears the next. Any debate is like this, infinite voting period or not, so it's better to keep it in a shorter time period so you actually have a winner. ::Rebuttals:: A limited time period debate actually gets you a winner for the debate. Should all debates be infinite voting periods, there would be no reason to. Basically, all the good that my opponent has stated here goes directly to a debate with a limited amount of voting period time, with a little cherry on top, which is that you know the definite winner. And as I stated before, most "good" votes are made in the first period of the voting time. I look forward to my opponent's response.
The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

Much thanks to Pro for starting this interesting topic. I enjoy topics about the site =D I will argue that the indefinite voting period option for debates on DDO should exist. No clarifying definitions seem necessary so I will simply present my contentions and then move on to my rebuttals. 1. Allows for More Accurate Judging By limiting a debate's voting period, you are essentially limiting the number of potential voters. Naturally, the more members that vote on a particular debate, the more likely the outcome will accurately reflect the quality of the arguments presented. By allowing for an indefinite voting period, one ensures that the debate's outcome is as accurate as possible. 2. A Defense against "Bombing" An extension of their improved accuracy, indefinite voting periods work to correct vote bombing. This process, which involves members voting on multiple accounts or based on aspects other than the presented arguments, can quickly decide the outcome of debates with shorter voting periods. Extending this period allows for bombing to be corrected as future readers support the rightful winner. 3. An Incentive to Participate The ability to actively participate in a debate encourages members to read, vote, and discuss the topic. Infinite voting periods allow for continuous input and interest from new members, keeping older topics fresh. Should all voting periods be finite, such input would likely be viewed as unnecessary and all debates would fade into the post-voting abyss. ::Rebuttals:: Pro argues that an indefinite voting period prevents winning. However, since outcomes are based on a point system, debates do not require set voting periods to determine a winner. An indefinite voting period simply limits the time frame for voting, which is not necessarily favorable. If a debater who is currently winning has the stronger arguments, their lead is essentially secured and a finite voting period is unnecessary. If their arguments are weaker, an indefinite voting period allows an unjustified win to be corrected. Should arguments be roughly equal on both sides, finite voting would capture only a snapshot of the potential outcome and limits future discussion, contemplation, and voting on the topic. I'll stop there for now and hand the floor over to Pro.
The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

I support the above resolution. Thank you to anyone who accepts this debate. Basically, the option in debates here on Debate.org to make the voting period to last indefinitely is...stupid. What is the point of wasting all that effort, to not even conclude the winner of a debate? The default option on the voting period is to make it last "indefintiely", and I think that this a very stupid choice. That option should be remove. The whole point of creating a debate and using time and effort is to try to win. And if you make the voting period last indefinitely, then what's the point of even debating if you don't know the winner?
I can eat more bacon than you

AS OF NOW I DECLARE MYSELF THE WINNER OF THIS DEBATE!!! for the following reasons: >this is my debate, therefore my universe in which we have debated, so no matter how much you try I will always be right since this is my universe and what I say goes. >the ancient elders of pandarthia are not real, that is an idea I put into your head as you were writing that post. I would never put that much authority on bacon into one small group of people. I prefer to remain the only authority on bacon, which I am. >I am not really gustav adolf II, I am morgan freeman, therefore your arguments that I am not the god of this debate are rendered invalid. >I am also chuck norris, just cause I can. you put up a decent fight, IALWAYSWINDEBATES, but ultimately you are my plaything. you will never amount to anything more than my plaything, exept maybe a momacon. I mean really, I had nothing to do with that. however, I am not yet bored with this little game we are playing my plaything. I will start another debate to continue this argument (which is pointless, because any argument you make will be rendered invalid because I am morgan freeman, but I just like to see you struggling for superiority against the strongest force of nature which is me). you will accept, you have no choice in the matter, I will make you do it. and since I am morgan freeman, I have no reason to follow the rules of this debate, but its fun so I'll do it anyway. maroon 5 played at Madison Square in 2007 there are exactly 291 episodes of dragon ball z Nicholas II (of the russian empire) ruled from 1 November 1894 until his forced abdication on 2 March 1917, when the communists led by lennin founded the soviet union of socialist republics. your move. make it interesting.
I can eat more bacon than you

Father, for I am ashamed of you, we made a pact seven years ago to never, never! Speak of my sister, you know the truth be hind it all of which you refuse to take into account, for the day I was born, at the same time a demon was brewing in the shadows, you only payed attenchion to me, WHY ME! You should have looked at her more, you could scence the evil spierling off of her, the dark over incombering esscence or evil oh which only two men could compair, those to men being you and your renched dump of a father. You're the one that drove the Elders of 'Panderthia' as you call them (Even though it is spelt Pandarthia) to the edge of insanitity, you drove them to kill their selves to conceal the truth about the fact I can eat more Bacon than you. When you went back in time with your deamon babes of the past children that you bared with your of precious 'Princess Peach', you came to notice all the manuscripts of the Elders were missing, when I said that I went to check in with the Elders it was me reclaiming what was rightfully mine, as I am the heir to the thrown of Pandarthia, the oh so great over watching god. It makes me sad that you would ever concider your self better than me for using the power of Pandarthia I here by banish you to a life time in a mongolian booty camp. You have the last round to state your case than you will be sentence to life, and Princes Peach will be mine, and only mine. Make sure when you're there to say hi to Sis for me onless ofcouse she kills you first. OBAMA OBAMA HE IS THE BEST FOR OBAMA WILL ALWAYS BE OURS OBAMA WILL RULE THE WORLD OBAMA OBAMA!!!! DBZ stands from Dragon Ball Z Maroon 5 is a band. (Due to time constrictions I cannot write more)
I can eat more bacon than you

There is no way, you can't...... How is this possible..... You cannot be him....... I looked back to the elders to get confirmation on my eating style, and they said "By the Power of Grey Skull you're eating style is truly eating for eating is consuming and by consuming you are eating and the fact that de' black hole in your body is in fact a way to eat." And you claim to have been at my Armenian Boxing ring Championship, but I know for a fact, that you were the Irish Belly Dancer plopped in the corner with the stray hookers and gasp smokers. I knew it was you all along, who other than my father would dare travel to the mount of doom, and who would ever dare wrestle a bear with nothing but a single pair of slacks (the pants). You say Princess Peach is my mom but I know, you cheated on her with Zelda, and In fact I am Zelda's child not Peach, and I am not afraid to tell her. (Don't make me call Link) DBZ: Piccolo is actually only four years older than Gohan. Namekians grow and age much faster than Humans or Saiyans, seeing as how Piccolo was already nearly full-grown by the age of 3. Maroon 5: The four original members of Maroon 5 met while attending Brentwood School in Los Angeles.