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

Questions for negative: Question #1: If school is such an important topic, why couldn't time be made to work out a solution for desegregation? Question #2: If there wasn't a law that would desegregate the people then how would racism and desegregation be stopped? Question #3: if there wasn't a law that stopped kids from going to school outside their neighborhood then why was it such a big deal?
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative assertion # 1: In 1974, court ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegrates Boston"s schools. Evidence: There wasn"t enough time for the community to work out a solution. Evidence: Even black parents were afraid of the violence of desegregation. Evidence: There was no law saying that kids couldn"t go to school outside the neighborhood. Negative assertion #2: Court-ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. Evidence: The white people got mad about the desegregation decision, which the court had made. Evidence: The white"s people started to provoke the violence by throwing rocks. Evidence: The white people stand outside, waiting to hurt the black students. Negative assertion #3: Race should be used as a basis for school assignment. Evidence: Different time, people shouldn"t need a law telling them what school their children has to go. Evidence: Till this day students drop out even with the law or without it. Evidence: Parent"s want their kids to go to school near home because it is faster and safer.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Assertion #1: In 1974, court ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Evidence: Blacks and whites didn"t want to mix, so they needed a higher power to do so. Evidence:Blacks needed a better quality education. Evidence:Neighborhoods were segregated and most kids went to neighborhood schools. Assertion #2:To create a desegregated school system, a judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. Evidence:Kids have to choose a school in their "zone" which might not be in their neighborhood (24 schools to choose from). Evidence:There aren"t enough larger good quality schools in every neighborhood. Evidence:The new plan could re-segregate based on neighborhood Assertion #3: Courts have power to reduce the effects of racial discrimination Evidence:Court created equality in Boston schools so the judge gave back control to Boston. Evidence:No one but the judge was able to "desegregate" Boston schools Evidence: People needed time to get used to the court orders, but it worked eventually.
Modern Warfare 2 is better than Black Ops

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is a better video game than its successor, Black Ops. 1. Better levels. The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay. 2. Spec Ops. Spec ops was WAY better than Zombies in Black Ops. Zombies is fun, but the spec ops were difficult and made for a fun 2-player co-op. 3. The storyline. The campaign in MW2 has a much better storyline with better gameplay. 4. Multiplayer. For some reason, the combination of weapons, maps, killstreaks, and perks in MW2 feels better than the combinations in Black Ops. Certain weapons in Black Ops are avoided entirely due to their extreme weaknesses. MW2 has a nicer strength/weakness trade-off for each weapon, perk, etc. 5. LAG!!! Black Ops is way more laggy. The game crashes way more often.
Modern Warfare 2 is better than Black Ops

First off, I will further discuss my opponents failure to provide the Burden of Proof (as he is Pro). As is custom, the initiator of the debate must provide a perimeter for the debate, but my opponent did not. "I feel as if my opponent has misinterpreted some of my points, so I will attempt to clarify these points." As you can clearly read, most of these points were based upon opinion. The only point that could possibly be logically proven either way was not defined by my opponent, which gave me free control over the direction I thought it should take. 1) My opponent stated: "1. Better levels. The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay." My argument was that it wasn't the Maps which provided better gameplay, it was the Graphics for BO. As we know, he did not define a perimeter, so my argument is valid. My opponent then stated "Again, I will agree with my opponent that the BO maps look nicer, have slightly better graphics, and perhaps look more realistic" and failed to prove why he felt otherwise. 2) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default. 3) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default. He also said, "This is really just my opinion. I thought the BO campaign storyline was a bit boring. In MW2, the game seemed a bit more exciting." 4) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default. 5) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default. Though he actually used a statistic -- it was not findable at any listed sources.. Yes I even checked the Wiki. Conclusion: My Opponent finished his debate with a slogan... "Black Ops? More like Whack Ops!" My Opponent held the burden of proof, yet failed to prove Black Ops was a worse game than MW2.
Modern Warfare 2 is better than Black Ops

As my opponent failed to post in Round 2, I will simply stretch my R1 to also be my R2. " I would like to say thank you to my opponent for creating this debate topic. I wish him the best of luck. My opponent has set very low standards when it comes to the parameters of this debate. And I will attempt to use his format. From this point on, BO will refer to Black Ops, and MW2 will refer to Modern Warfare Two. 1) My opponent claims based on an opinion driven statement that MW2 maps "provide way better gameplay." a) Both MW2 and BO were rendered using and advanced version of the World at War graphics engine created by Activision. This graphics engine allows for enlarged maps with higher graphics. Though both MW2 and BO used this engine, BO featured higher lighting quality, the first 3D addition, and upwards of 60 Frames per second (MW2 caps at 60). BO was also the first game in the series to create scenes based upon motion capturing (which is how the scenes of Avatar were created). b) Conclusion: My opponent stated that "The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay". My conclusion to the first point is that the Graphic Rendering of BO created better gameplay than the maps in MW2. 2) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory. 3) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory. 4) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory. Round 1 Conclusion: My opponent has relied on his opinions to create the perimeters of this debate. I was only able to reply to his first statement because it was the only statement which was solid and provided a path for which to provide evidence to support my arguments. Sources: Interview with Producer. http://www.joystiq.com...... Releases of information before game release. http://kotaku.com...... Video about the 3D features. http://www.gametrailers.com...... "
Modern Warfare 2 is better than Black Ops

My opponent has set very low standards when it comes to the parameters of this debate. And I will attempt to use his format. From this point on, BO will refer to Black Ops, and MW2 will refer to Modern Warfare Two. 1) My opponent claims based on an opinion driven statement that MW2 maps "provide way better gameplay. " a) Both MW2 and BO were rendered using and advanced version of the World at War graphics engine created by Activision. This graphics engine allows for enlarged maps with higher graphics. Though both MW2 and BO used this engine, BO featured higher lighting quality, the first 3D addition, and upwards of 60 Frames per second (MW2 caps at 60). BO was also the first game in the series to create scenes based upon motion capturing (which is how the scenes of Avatar were created). b) Conclusion: My opponent stated that "The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay". My conclusion to the first point is that the Graphic Rendering of BO created better gameplay than the maps in MW2. 2) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory. 3) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory. 4) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory. Round 1 Conclusion: My opponent has relied on his opinions to create the perimeters of this debate. I was only able to reply to his first statement because it was the only statement which was solid and provided a path for which to provide evidence to support my arguments. Sources: Interview with Producer. . http://www.joystiq.com... Releases of information before game release. . http://kotaku.com... Video about the 3D features. . http://www.gametrailers.com...
President Obama has been Directly Detrimental to our Economy and National Security

Even though there were some discrepancies over the matter of what we were actually debating, I was quite satisfied with this; and I would happily arbitrate the subject again. I would also like to thank the voters. Each response in this debate was quite lengthy. I know for a fact I was once just 4 characters shy of the monstrous 8,000 character limit, so if you have read this far and are considering our arguments, than I am very appreciative. Response to any New Arguments: In recognition of the forfeit, there are no new arguments to be dealt with. Why I Feel I Deserve the Vote: In my first argument, I utilized a twin attack, two-pronged, if you will. The first point was in regards to the deficit and the debt, (the particulars are listed in round two), and the second scrutinized the the statistics and methodology of President Obama's job creation policies. My opponent's response, as recorded in round two, is strictly characterized by playing the "blame game. " The majority of it is focused not on President Obama's strategies and their implications, but on those of others. He then went on to explain the difficulties of spending cuts. Believe me folks, I recognize them. But unlike my opponent, I have made aware the necessity of such cuts. It is not an option that we can groan and wail about the particulars. If our nation is to remain, a balanced budget is a pure necessity. To suggest otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous. Please note that nowhere in my opponents assertions is found a rebuttal to the second point of my attack. There was absolutely no reference to anything concerning job creation. Whether this absence was a result of pure neglect or if it was just due to the limitations of the character limit, I do not know. But any chance that my opponent had to refute my second argument was lost in his forfeiture of the third round. Other points: As far as conduct is concerned, I believe both I and my opponent were both quite civil in our arbitration. As far as spelling and grammar is concerned, I feel that both of ours was fairly decent. I will point out my opponents confusing misuse of the words deficit and debt. I had defined them in my argument and yet my opponent continued to use them as if they were synonyms. To be fair, I have seen professional politicians make this mistake as well. I suppose this would be categorized more in the vocabulary region than the spelling and grammar one. Argumentation-wise: Like I said before, I presented two points; my opponent refuted only one. That one refutation was met by my part with a thorough rebuttal and counter assertion. My opponent forfeited round three, so everything I have said has gone either unchallenged or has been sufficiently supported. Once again, I want to thank my opponent and the voters. This was a fantastic debate and I am looking forward to my next argument on the topic. CRSdave.
President Obama has been Directly Detrimental to our Economy and National Security

Accepted.All I have to do is prove that "the entire Obama administration" is not held completely accountable for the current state of America.My opponent seems to be one of the many who ascribes empirical data to the overall performance/trends of the economy.I will prove my opponent's premise to be erroneous. I will use a historical example, logical analysis and, most importantly,Basic Economics. As for National Security, I will present arguments and rebuttal in response to my opponent's assertions. Many of the problems we suffer today will be pinned on George W. Bush and his adminstration.
President Obama has been Directly Detrimental to our Economy and National Security

I will be arguing the premise that our current President, Barrack Obama, has instituted Government policies with either catastrophic, poor, or neutral consequences to the United States of America's economy and National Security. In this debate, the entire Obama administration is to be held accountable for the current state of America, although special consideration is to be given to the President as he is the head executive of our country. Thus, he must be accredited more so for the current state of America. Con Will be presenting the case that the administration's actions have provided positive results for the United States. This first round is reserved for my explanation and my opponent's acceptance. The following two rounds are for argumentation, and the 4th round is for argumentation and closing statements. My thanks in advance to my opponent.
Single-sex schools

unfortunately Pro has failed to reply to my arguments. I will give him another chance to post his rebbutals and new arguments before adding more arguments myself. I am a bit disappointed as this would have been a fun debate. I ask that you would not deduct points for conduct as to give Pro a chance to catch up!---------------------------------------------------I have refuted both of pros arguments and added 2 of my own, which are yet to be refutedWe should have to freedom to choose.Segregating genders is unnatural. HAPPY DEBATING!-Dennis
Single-sex schools

Single sex schools are seperate schools that only invite a certain gender. That would include non-hereditary ones like lesbian and gay.Usually, the first round would be for acceptance only, but I figured I have enough time for an argument or two. So, as usual, it is recommended that clarifications are to be made in the comment section BEFORE acceptance.Prevention of insultsIf we have single sex schools, having seperate schools, with each only inviting a specific criteria, you won't have different genders oppresing you, treating you like you're authoritatively below them. I assure you there'll be no, or less if there are really unintelligent people, people doing so, since if you opress someone for their gender, having established the fact that you're in a single sex school, you're also oppressing yourself. Easy reservedSay, currently, there are no single sex schools and education. In Phys Ed, you would need to construct 2 rooms, one and another being reserved for 2 genders. However, for single sex schools, in a way, in is made less difficult; There only needs to be constructed 1 locker room, being reserved for what gender that school invites only.2nd contention isn't really as effective as the 1st, but is benefitial to the constructors.
Global warming is man made

Regarding the copy-pasta'd youtube video: I would suggest you not just post links without saying what is in them since that is not debating. I am able to do the same thing but I'd rather not since it lowers both our enjoyment. Regarding your argument: You provided no definition of global warming thus I guess I must. Global warming is defined as: "an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere (especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes)"[1] With this definition in mind we can see that my opponent's entire argument falls since it neither has evidence to back it up nor does it even agree with Princeton's definition of global warming. Also, my opponent dropped my argument and never responded to my evidence thus I flow it across and one can say global warming is NOT man made. QED [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (Must I respond to a picture? But regardless I shall, Venus is closer to the sun thus is hotter than earth. This argument is invalid)
Global warming is man made

Like many people my opponent is mislead to believe that Global Warming means the earth is just getting hotter. The word "Global warming" can be misleading as well. But many parts of the Earth have gotten colder because of Global Warming. The reason being pressure changes in areas that influence the temperature. And also, the shifting of jet streams. I can expand on that later on. Without a doubt we can see there is a massive shift in climate. It rained in December in Aspen Colorado! That's never happened before. It is absurd to say this is a cycle and not man made. and its a funny coincidence that the change started in the 20th century, when the world started to Industrialize and produce cars, planes, and other Co2 emitting products. This is what a planet looks like when it is suounded by a dense atmosphere. http://www.nasm.si.edu... Its venus!
Global warming is man made

First off I must say that my opponent holds the BOP since he made the claim that global warming is man made. But in this first round I will bring forth one piece of evidence but I reserve the right to bring more in later. Warming is a myth: There is no scientific consensus and even if their were some consensus, even if by the stretch of ones imagination, it is not based upon any scientific evidence. The funny thing is that the earth has been cooling for 10 years and this fact contradicts the claims made by proponents of global warming flat out. "Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth's climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate."[1] [1] http://www.thenewamerican.com...
Global warming is man made

//many parts of the Earth have gotten colder// You are saying that global warming entails cooling as well but my definition contradicts your unproven claim thus I win this point. //You have no evidence to support that Global warming is anything else but man made.// It is your burden to prove that it isn't. You made the original claim. I have proven that warming is a myth even and this has gone uncontested. Since you have not disproven that fact I win. //You tell me what the climate shift is being caused by.// It is not happening. See my evidence from round 1. // There is no doubt the Polar bears are going extinct.// No doubt? I'm sorry sir but this is a debate that requires evidence, not just baseless claims. You have not proven anything. As you said regarding mercury, it has small atmosphere that does not keep a lot of heat in. But again this is invalid. This has no bearing on the debate. //So there is no doubt that a planet with a dense atmosphere is going to warm up.// I agree but you have not proven that our atmosphere is getting denser thus this claim does not matter. If you had proven that our atmosphere was getting denser then this would have been more interesting. //And, you also did not address my point about the climate shift happening within this century. That it started to change when the world started emitting Co2.// You only talked about us giving off more CO2 but you provided no evidence that it was not being recycled and you provided nothing to show that our atmosphere was getting thicker. There was no need to respond to a claim not grounded in fact. //Just Google 'temperature of the earth', and you will find an array of charts that clearly show the planet warming.// Just Google "reasons why gloabl warming is a myth" and you will find tons of evidence disproving your point. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu... Conclusion: My opponent never responded to my first piece of evidence (and might I add the only piece in this entire debate) which showed that warming is a myth. Since this has gone not only unrefuted but uncontested throughout the entire debate I must ask for a Con ballot.
Global warming is man made

Why doesn't my argument agree with Princeton's definition of global warming? the definition reads "especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes)"[1] it got hotter I said. "Without a doubt we can see there is a massive shift in climate. It rained in December in Aspen Colorado" it got hotter if anything you just helped my argument. You have no evidence to support that Global warming is anything else but man made. You tell me what the climate shift is being caused by. Here is another point. There is no doubt the Polar bears are going extinct. If this was a "cycle", which the earth's temperature shot up for a few years, then dropped back down, then Polar bears would have died in the last "cycle." And its not invalid. mercury is 50 million miles closer to the sun than Venus is, but it surface temperature is lower than Venus'. Atmosphere: Mercury has very little atmosphere. Mercury's thin atmosphere consists of atoms blasted off its surface by the solar wind, a constant stream of particles coming from the outer layer of the Sun. The average surface temperature on Mercury is 166.86 C (332.33ï¿½ F). Venus Atmosphere: It has a thick, poisonous atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Temperature: 456.85 C (854.33ï¿½ F) So there is no doubt that a planet with a dense atmosphere is going to warm up. Things that emit Co2 are going to get taped within the atmosphere. its like a blanket or a giant greenhouse. And, you also did not address my point about the climate shift happening within this century. That it started to change when the world started emitting Co2. Just Google 'temperature of the earth', and you will find an array of charts that clearly show the planet warming. http://science.nasa.gov...