BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black is a color.

You wrote:"I have won this point with out question."I am going to prove you wrong. "1. Black is the absence of color (and is therefore not a color) Explanation:When there is no light, everything is black. Test this out by going into a photographic dark room. There are no photons of light. In other words, there are no photons of colors. 2. White is the blending of all colors and is a color. Explanation:Light appears colorless or white. Sunlight is white light that is composed of all the colors of the spectrum. A rainbow is proof. You can't see the colors of sunlight except when atmospheric conditions bend the light rays and create a rainbow. You can also use a prism to demonstrate this." [1]It seems you lack knowledge of basic science. The visible spectrum - a part of the electromagnetic spectrum - does not contain black whatsoever. It is therefore not a color. I will post another quote in order to prove you are incorrect."Black is non-colour. Colour is wavelengths of light and black is the result when no lightwaves are emitted or reflected. When you add black to a saturated colour in a subtractive palette(CMYK), or subtract white from an additive palette(RGB), you are creating a shade of that colour. Do the same with grey (desaturating), you create a tone. Do it with white, you create a tint." [2]I hope I have convinced you. Sources[1] http://www.colormatters.com...[2] http://wiki.answers.com...
Black is a color.

I would like to point out my opponent's innacuracies. Black is not a color. Black is the absence of color. White is the presence of all colors. Here is proof: As you can see, black is not a part of the visible spectrum. Now, if you were to make all these colors overlap, you would get white. That is why we get rainbows: The sun's white light passes through raindrops and shows us the visible spectrum. If you were to close your eyes, you would see black. If you were to be in a cave many miles under the ground without any light source, there would be black. If you were to look at space where there aren't any stars, there would be black. Black is not a color. I await your response.
Bestiality should be illegal in all cases in the United States

Con has cherry picked my argument and ignored the part about having to over haul the legal system to accomodate legalization. Additionally Con operates under something of a delusion that she can shovel off Burden of Proof. Fact of the matter is that an animal is apable of rape and i have established that. The law is no capable of acomidating a case of rape between a man and animal because an Animal is not LEGALLY competent. it is not capable of knowing its wights, As is basic sense but also established in primary argument. Furth Con counter the point by attempting to say that children are morally competent but this is inocrrect, a child BECOMES morally competent but an infinte is not morally competenent. Unlike most of the animal kindgom where the offspring comes out ( in most species) with the majority of its mental capacity already developed, Humans continue to mature metally out side of the womb for the majority of their mental development. The lack of moral agency extends in your argument to void infants and animals of basic rights. I have given you a solid reason why not to legalize beastality nationally. Our legal system is not capable of dealing with the legal problems presented by the capacity of a human or an animal to press charges of rape, thought the capacity for rape clearly exists. Texas may have legalized it but the very first tiem Major inicdent comes forth that undermines the legal deifnitions of consenual sex and protections of humans against sexual abuse.You cherry picked it, taking what you wanted to hear and disregarded the rest. The votes will decide.
Science is false.

science means knowledge .it is a systematic enterprise that builds the organised knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe and the universe is very big and consists of million things and those million things require a lot of time to understand and science is that tool that is exploring those if you are saying it is false then tell me the reason behind the miracles of science .you can't just put over the argument that science is false can you give me those explanations which are proved by science and invented with the help of science just tell me 1. you are on website debate.org it is real made with the help of science is it not working ? it should not if it is only based on premises 2. malaria is avoided by an injection ? is it false? 3. power is generating , transmitted to your home, you are watching a tv is it false ? 4. all world is studying science are all mad? 5. see all things around you and just you science is the only thing that will give all answers .....you can not just make all things false by just giving a statement apart from that if you say that it is assumed that if a is true than b....i want to tell you that science is testable explanation and most of the universe mystery are proved by science when it is assumed it doesn't matter if it is properly working on our physical universe .......in your words that is assumption in my words that is theories of science that is continuously observing working ......and not stopped still exploring and it will continue for proving our universe
Science is false.

Science can be formalized........ as a syllogism!P1) Research, test and repeat.P2) The first premise works.C) Science works!However, it's missing an infinite amount of premises. You also need to have the premise that if A, then B and A is true, then B. And so forth forever. So, science is so circular and self-serving or something like that.Also, a gap in the fossil record.Thank you.
All colleges and universities should accept the Common Application for undergraduate admissions.

My opponent makes a strange argument as his conclusion. He attempts to show that the "Kleptin Application" I propose actually in some way includes the Common Application. This is, of course, far from the truth. The common application allows room for a "general essay" as my opponent has stated. However, it is this general essay that I have problems with. The suggested page length is no more than 2 pages and it is supposed to be an essay that applies to all schools. I find this to be a lack of integrity on the part of the applicant and have made arguments to illustrate why. As I have stated before, a standardized application process is fine. It is just a problem if the standardization involves a loss of academic integrity. This does not stem from the actual standardization, but rather on the method of standardization. The common app encourages students to apply in bulk, whereas the Kleptin application encourages students to submit new works to each school that he or she decides to apply to. This is the key difference and my opponent has not even attempted to address this main issue. My opponent states that his "Green" arguments were unaddresed but in reality, I did not address them because I thought it was obvious that my "Kleptin Application" would also be completely electronic, making this point void. To conclude: The Common Application encourages students and colleges to view higher education as a fast-food industry, to mass-apply to colleges without any heart or feeling, and to burden colleges with applicants that have no integrity or intent to attend even if accepted. My proposed Kleptin Application is different in that it makes the application process more difficult and time consuming on the part of the student, but easier on the part of the school. Students will be inclined to apply to less schools because they need to come up with an original 5-page essay for each school, and need to fully understand why they believe the school is for them since an interview is required. This application process retains academic integrity and attempts to return higher education to the institution it once was. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.
All colleges and universities should accept the Common Application for undergraduate admissions.

My opponent is attempting to counter my argument with a counterplan. However, what he fails to realize is that all of the aspects of the plan he poses are part of the common app process. To apply to a school, even with the common app, school transcripts, standardized grades, and recommendations [2] are required. At least two essays need to be written, one for the general application and one for college-specific supplements [1], not to mention any other essays for performing arts or athletic supplements. While alumni interviews are not necessary, they are still very important to the application process, and any serious applicant should schedule one. Here is where things stand right now. On the one hand, if my opponent is right and the Common Application is a way of standardizing the college application process and will harm academic integrity, then both my opponent and I's cases are forfeit. On the other, if, as I affirm, the Common Application is a useful and convenient way to apply to colleges, then my opponent in essence agrees with me. Either way, my second two points concerning the environmental friendliness of my proposal and its benefits to colleges have gone unaddressed, and remain intact as this debate enters the voting period. Once again, I would like to apologize for forfeiting the previous round of debate, and I respectfully urge a Pro vote. 1: http://www.stolaf.edu... 2: https://www.commonapp.org...
All colleges and universities should accept the Common Application for undergraduate admissions.

Resolved: All colleges and universities should accept the Common Application for undergraduate admissions. The Common App represents a convenient, efficient, and effective way for students and colleges to interact. Rather than requiring students to fill out tediously repetitive admissions applications to numerous colleges all asking the same questions, the Common Applications offers one questionnaire that can be filled out and submitted to a number of colleges without having to pay fees for each one. What I am advocating is the requirement that all colleges accept this application. Contention 1: Benefits to Students The benefits of this are numerous. For one thing, it makes life easier for students by reducing the amount of paperwork they have to fill out from 3-5 sheets per college to one form for every college. It is also cheaper for students, as many colleges and universities have application submission fees, regardless of whether the student is accepted or not, and would allow students of lower economic means to apply to all of the schools the had their sights set on without having to worry about being unable to afford to do so. Using the Common App would streamline the process of college admissions. Contention 2: The "Green" Factor Another simple benefit that using the Common Application offers is that it would cut the amount of paper required for admissions. While there is no official estimate of the amount of paper used by potential undergraduate students I am certain that it is a substantial amount. The Common Application is entirely electronic and uses no paper. This would, in essence, mean that the only producers of paper during the application process were colleges, and would cut the amount of paper used substantially. Contention 3: Benefits to Universities Finally, the Common Application offers benefits to colleges. When colleges receive applications from the Common App, they receive all the information in the form of digital media. This makes it easier for them to organize and keep track of student records. Rather than having to keep filing cabinets upon filing cabinets filled with folders of student information, school can instead use computer databases to store the information, making it more easily organized and accessible.
history should be optional in schools

"When you get out of school you will find out that life does not divide subjects into science, history, language arts, or mathematics. " But we are talking about whether history should be optional in schools or not. Con seems to be deviating from the resolution. And what we learn in history is usually not linked to subjects like music, art, english or math. While you may argue that the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu is great, it isn't going to be useful for us for most likely we are not going to be war generals. Even in the situation of all-out war, we would be soldiers and not be able to control the entire battle. "Some history depends on personal taste, where one finds beauty, the joy of discovery, or intellectual challenge. " But in school, everyone has to study to same topic, and that's the reason it is disliked by the majority. If history was optional, we could see the topics for next year and enroll or pass. "Through our history we discover cultural identity, because we gain access to the laboratory of human experience. We discover our customs, values, and morals. " It isn't necessary we wish to identify with them. Plus, con hasn't given a rebuttal to point about Britain. Britain's previous values have been that they are superior to everyone else and they would dominate, but do the citizens still think like that? Should the citizens think like that? As for the first Amendment, we all know freedom is our fundamental right, and that includes freedom of speech. Someone would need to tell us in a communist country that we are not allowed to give our opinions, for it is natural to speak about what is on our mind. "In this country you do not need to be a bystander" Stop saying this country. I am not an American. "Will you choose to forget who you are? " Does it really matter to me how did I obtain my freedom? So long as I have it, I am all right. Why does an immigrant need to know so much history? The US needs to change its immigration policies. I think all that history takes up too much space in our mind and is not practical. As we are all ordinary citizens, we can't do anything about the past, or do much in the future. After all, even though we would know about all revolutions and how to start a successful revolution, we wouldn't, because it is hard work and we don't want it. While some people are curious into the origin of things, it is ultimately unuseful and therefore history should be optional. In addition to that, students should get more freedom to choose what they learn, for the real world depends upon specialization. The saying "It is better to be a master of one trade than a jack of all" comes to my mind.
history should be optional in schools

Your argument about aiding globalization is not a strong premise. If you look on this debate site alone you will notice Globalization is a controversial subject. At the expense of sounding redundant let me ask you: Are you going to write a book that surpasses 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu? You did mentioned you could come up with war strategies. Or perhaps you can come up with one new word. like Shakespeare. Do you know how to create one new word? You are a rather smart perhaps you can, but does that mean that everyone else can? Many people do not understand semantics, and how many words are created with old words from the study of etymology from history. Do you think you can create a master piece like Beethoven or Mozart? When you get out of school you will find out that life does not divide subjects into science, history, language arts, or mathematics. They are simply tools that you will use in life and one without the other would only dull your abilities. Your interpretation of history is a travesty! You did not mention that; Some history depends on personal taste, where one finds beauty, the joy of discovery, or intellectual challenge. Between the inescapable minimum and the pleasure of deep commitment comes the history that, through cumulative skill in interpreting the unfolding human record, provides a real grasp of how the world works. Through our history we discover cultural identity, because we gain access to the laboratory of human experience. We discover our customs, values, and morals. Through our history we attempt to make meaning of how we see the world through various techniques. The Constitution of the United States has protected our freedom and give fundamental principles for governing our country. The First amendment protects your freedom of speech and the freedom of press. Think about that for a moment, in a communist country we have learned that if anyone was brave enough to speak out, they could disappear the very next day and you would never see them again. In this country you do not need to be a bystander. Do you know that in some instances a bystander could be as guilty as the perpetrator. Edmond Burke who lived between January 12, 1729- July 9,1797 reminds us that "Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." Have you ever heard about the shot that was heard around the world in 1775? If not I suggest that you read this poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Here is asingle passage of his poem. We set to-day a votive stone; "That memory may their deed redeem, When, like our sires, our sons are gone. Spirit, that made those heroes dare, To die, and leave their children free," This poem is talking about your cultural identity and why you have your freedom today. Will you choose to forget who you are? Why don't you learn about the questions that an immigrant must answer to come into this country. http://immigration.about.com... Do you think that an immigrant should know more about American history than the average citizen does?
history should be optional in schools

For us to understand the world we live in we need to know our history, such as in math, writing, and art. Math is based on axioms and theorems, without history Math would be obsolete. Writing and language includes a study of etymology and linguistics, without history we can not understand how English can change and become out of date. Art and culture help shape our values that we have today as a community. Any time we are involved in a debate we must understand the communities values of our listeners. The reason we must get involved in our history is to create our future. The stakes are greater because of the technology that we have, we can ruin mankind and we can ruin our earth if we repeat the same mistakes. History is our solution guide. Who is responsible for political decisions? The people who go to school, it is not the poor uneducated who are illiterate, handicapped, less skillful, or discriminated against. The politicians look to those who are strong politically, and to those who know how to mount hustings, write newspapers, and provide the candidates. They only need 51% of the votes and they seek those who know how to use the system, they want the middle class. Do you know who pays for better schools, and other institutional programs it is the poor, the lower classes through their taxes, and the elite pay no attention to them. So, go to school learn as much as you can while you can and stand up for those who can not. If you want to find out how powerful you really are in politics watch this video by Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 " November 16, 2006) who was an American economist who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic sciences. Where he talks about the Robin Hood Myth. Scienceshttp://www.bing.com... Ronald Reagon said: " Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again." I am glad that you are getting involved in this debate forum, you are learning what you believe in and how to defend it. One way you learn what you believe in is through history, you can develop a sense of cultural identity. This will make you a strong opponent and a powerful advocate. When we learn how other nations were deceived by vague ambiguous language in the past we can see how to correct the problem. We will also be able to educate and alert the people. No longer will the elite be able to debase English and downgrade the intelligence of the American people, because you will be ready to stand up to them. I appreciate when you and all the other young people today take on this great responsibility, what a great privilege, and it only gets better.
history should be optional in schools

I don't think history should be compulsory in schools as they have no practical use. Some people say lessons of the past give us learning, but as citizens we would never have to make decisions of a world leader. Also, history is out of date, and as times change, its lessons don't apply to the present world, such as imperialist doctrines. Lastly, most of the lessons can be gained without learning history. One example would be that hitler killed many Jews, but wouldn't I know that killing and racial discrimination is bad without reading about Hitler? History should be optional and only those who have an interest in history should study history.
Quebec Seperatism

1) The key issue has been that integration with Canada will lead to the Quebecoise ceasing to exist as a nation and instead merging into an ethnic / linguistic minority. No advantage of that integration has been presented. It has been an assumption throughout that the benefit of integration justify the harms but very few benefits have actually been mentioned and most of those (like confusing GDP and GDP per capita) have been refuted. The result is we have a case which argues for a policy with consented to harms but no clear benefits. 2) The issue that Canada does not represent Quebecoise policies was not addressed. The issues of national construction are key. Currently the most popular party in Quebec is federalist and there official policy is the Sherbrooke declaration: (. http://www.pierreducasse.ca...). This document calls for : Recognition of the Quebecoise as a nation. This includes the right for Quebec as a provence to be officially and publicly French. Con rejected this position which has majority support as not supporting minority rights. What Canadians call “Asymmetrical Federalism”. In American terms this is essentially the right Quebec to exercise what Southern States called “nullification”. That is Quebec would have the right to opt out of Federal programs, take a block grant and do it themselves and also tax differently. That is in all but name a policy to separate peacefully with strong integration. I’d argue given the success of the NDP Quebec is still pushing for some form of loose federation. 3) The issue that separation could be achieved easily was proven. The population statistics were given and not refuted. 4) The analogy with Switzerland and Belgium were accepted throughout this debate and in both cases those unions are highly troubled and mostly unsuccessful. 5) There has been agreement that biculturalism / bilingualism with respect to the English speaking population has been a failure. While the Quebecoise learned English the English-Canadians outside Quebec were disinterested in learning French. Given that biculturalism / bilingualism was the basis of Quebec staying in a unified Nation state I think the negative has been proven. So. .. I think the NDP position Asymmetrical Federalism offers some a useful a separation with strong integration and that failing Quebec should move towards full and genuine independence, the two options discussed in round 3.