BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative action.

I fail to understand your argument. I agree with you that race should not be a part of anything, I find it to be an irrelevant and inaccurate way to determine whether affirmative action should apply. I believe we must first ask ourselves, "Why should affirmative action be implemented if this is not an issue about race?" Affirmative action is supposed to balance the odds between a majority and a minority with equal skill but unequal opportunity due to something irrelevant. The classic example of a poor black family who started out at the bottom of the ladder due to racism and oppression applies. Now, let's go back to your argument and take race out of the picture. You now have the poor against the rich, and your proposal has a seemingly robin-hood-esque feel to it. However, this is NOT a black and white issue. There is a false dichotomy in declaring that affirmative action protects the poor from the rich. If affirmative action is implemented, you will be benefiting the poor at the expense of the MIDDLE CLASS while the upper class remains unharmed. Let me use the example of college acceptance. A middle class student of East Asian descent whose parents immigrated here with absolutely nothing applies to a prestigious university. A lower class student of African descent, whose family has been marred by oppression and racism applies to the same university. An upper class student of European descent has his father donate a wing to the prestigious university and applies there. Assuming all three went to the same high school and had the same grades, the only one who would be rejected would be the Asian student. Why? Because the rich applicant will NEVER be turned down, EVER. There will never be a situation in which a person hires or accepts a lower class person for an upper class person because there are always people in between. So whoever it is, an employer or college acceptance official, will always select the rich kid and the poor kid, the middle class kid will have to fight extra hard. So you see, affirmative action is good in theory, but it cripples the middle class. Implementing affirmative action would just blur the line between lower class and middle class. This is unfair and is also why I am against affirmative action as it is now, or as you propose.
Affirmative action.

Preferential treatment to some because of their race and gender is just plain racist or sexist. Now, I understand some people have it hard. For example, some black kids work their butts off in bad circumstances and if a white kid with a millionaire dad gets the same grades as the black student, then I believe that the black student deserves preferential treatment when applying for college. However, Affirmative action works both ways. What about the white kids in bad neighborhoods? What about the black kids in great neighborhoods with rich families to provide for them? Racism against whites or Asians or such are not always fair, therefore there should be a different system for affirmative action. The government should just give preferential treatment to people under worse conditions. Whether it's the family income, or the condition of their neighborhood, the ability to perform in their highschool, etcetera. Race shouldn't be involved in this whatsoever. As for women, I don't think they are discriminated so much to deserve preferential treatment. They did receive voting rights after African-Americans, but who really was treated the worst? The Women's movement in America has ended long ago, you hear way more black people screaming racism than women screaming sexism, and that's why Al Sharpton still has a job. This is a 1 round debate, make all the points you want to make.
The Egyptian revolution has been a success

Thanks for that wonderful reply master Ahmad Opponent: I am not sure this is a valid statement since this is not backed up by facts. It is only rumours transmitted between people - I'm very sorry i didn't cite my source however a quick search in Google will tell you everything you need to know-here is 1 example of many http://www.indianexpress.com... Opponent: All that has happened since the revolution is that a former president was removed and a new president (Mohammed Morsi) replaced him. This replacement hasn't changed anything and did not make the poor rich or the hungry full. - I don't believe it is fair to generate your views on a president of a major player in the global community from him being in power for less than a year. What do you think most of the presidents manage to accomplish in the first few months of their careers? I believe that before the revolution Egypt had no real impact in the world but now he current president is trying to make major alliances with other countries such as Iran and Turkey. Opponent: Removing the president is only a the first step of a long ladder that requires constant motivation to reach the top. - If removing the president is the very first step then why shouldn't the Egyptian people not take it-where would they be if nothing happened. You are basically saying that the people shouldn't even try since it requires ' constant motivation to reach the top'.
The Egyptian revolution has been a success

Thank you for that Mr Mostafa. I will start by rebutting some of your points. Opponent: I personally believe that the previous government required drastic changes that couldn't have happened while former president Hosni Moubark was in power. -Whilst I agree with the fact that the former president Hosni Moubarak needed to be overthrown, I would like to point out that the main cause of this revolution was not to overthrow a president but to strive for a greater cause of freedom and democracy. Removing the president is only a the first step of a long ladder that requires constant motivation to reach the top. Opponent: The fact that the president has power above everyone else in the country and he can do anything he pleases is a fault in its own right. This change was required to occur a couple of decades ago, since if Egypt had stayed in its previous state the poor would remain poor, so much so that they can't afford bread. Furthermore, if the do save up enough money to purchase a loaf of bread, they will usually find a couple of stones entwined with the bread, therefore health complications would occur. -All that has happened since the revolution is that a former president was removed and a new president (Mohammed Morsi) replaced him. This replacement hasn't changed anything and did not make the poor rich or the hungry full. In fact the new president has had some weak actions and has showed the people that he might not be the man for the job since he has not fulfilled any of his promises. It seems like Egypt might go back to dictatorship since the president still controls everything that happens in the country. This time the person controlling the country is weak. Opponent: Former president Hosni Moubark had $70 billion worth of assets all over the world, and was thought to be the richest man alive for a short period of time. -I am not sure this is a valid statement since this is not backed up by facts. It is only rumours transmitted between people. To conclude I think that the Egyptian people need to change their way of thinking and not only change their president. A successful revolution is one that achieves its targets and not only one.
The Egyptian revolution has been a success

A wonderful start by my veteran opponent. I personally believe that the previous government required drastic changes that couldn't have happened while former president Hosni Moubark was in power. He overstayed his visit, so to speak, by changing the constitution of Egypt. The fact that the president has power above everyone else in the country and he can do anything he pleases is a fault in its own right. This change was required to occur a couple of decades ago, since if Egypt had stayed in its previous state the poor would remain poor, so much so that they can't afford bread. Furthermore, if the do save up enough money to purchase a loaf of bread, they will usually find a couple of stones entwined with the bread, therefore health complications would occur. But because of a failure of a health department in Egypt, there wouldn't be much help for the poor. Moreover, there was a lot of corruption occurring during the previous regime. Former president Hosni Moubark had $70 billion worth of assets all over the world, and was thought to be the richest man alive for a short period of time.
The Egyptian revolution has been a success

Let me start by congratulating my opponent for his excellent English language skills. On the 25th of January 2011, the spark that lit the revolution in Egypt against all forms of mistreatment and mass thievery happened. The people flooded the streets with their wants for freedom and democracy. They wanted a better Egypt with a brighter future. They wanted better living standards for themselves and their families. The question is has this happened? The answer is no. As a matter of fact things got worse. The police lost their authority and security became weak in a country where weakness is no tolerated. Crime rates increased and chaos erupted whenever a person demanded a simple thing. Democracy and freedom were misunderstood. Basically the Egypt of today is even worse than the Egypt before the times of dictatorship. So therefore I believe that the revolution has cause more harm than good to the Egyptian community itself.
Messi is better than Ronaldo

Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo due to the fact that Messi is 28 and Ronaldo is 33, Messi also helps other teammates get up the pitch, whereas Ronaldo hogs the ball and refuses to pass to Bale whose in a better position. Ronaldo hasn't been in as good form as Messi. Messi is better than Ronaldo. That is fact, not fantasy.
Messi is better than Ronaldo

But your argument about Messi being a quitter is now null and void because Messi has announced that he will not retire from international football. Ronaldo is, after all, having a terrible Euros 2016 and Messi reached the finals of the 'Copa D'America', Portugal may make it to the finals of Euro 2016, but, they can't win unless they're up against Iceland, which has been knocked out. But we await the result of my point.
school uniforms should be banned

Educational focus is important, but that's why students go to school, so how they dress is usually not the top priority. Uniforms are expensive. They cost hundreds of dollars, and when students grow out of them, families need to buy more. How students look and feel about themselves compared to their peers will still happen with uniforms. Only instead of outfit choice, which can easily be changed, students with uniforms will worry about other aspects of their appearance. Some examples are body shape, height, weight, etc. Growing adolescents need to express themselves to be able to develop their individuality. Making them look like everyone else (clothing wise) will only cage in their creativity. My stance on this issue is Pro, because I believe school uniforms should be banned for the following reasons above, and for more reasons I shall put into detail as the debate develops.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word. No one has posted

As was said before, my opponent is very uneducated about Islam and Christianity. We can see that, as he likes to post my arguments and comment on them with one to two non-explanatory sentences. He still hasn't formulated an argument, however, I will await that in the next round hopefully. Please note that wear the Godhand says that Constantine invented modern Christianity, he failed to say that in the first round, thus leading me to the conclusion that he was very uneducated about early Christianity, and I still retain my position on that. Second, he says Mohammed never became emperor. So what! Mohammed ruled a large nation as did King David and they were both small figures. A lame argument for saying that Mohammed was not sane enough to run a nation. Perhaps the opposition is not sane enough, I don't see him running a nation or ruling a large company, which I am sure he doesn't. So he has no ground to say Mohammed or King David for that matter were not sane enough or just because he wasn't an emperor couldn't run a nation. Finally, he states that Allah killed men by the thousands and is hateful. Wow, what about in your Bible where it says that God killed three thousand men. Exodus 32:27-29 (King James Version) 27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. 28And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. Also, Mohammed didn't send missionaries to kill. A year after the Battle of Tabuk, the Banu Thaqif sent emissaries to Medina to surrender to Muhammad and adopt Islam.http://en.wikipedia.org... He also took Mecca with minimal casualties, and even Wikipedia says that. So how is it, that Mohammed, if he was a bloody man, would sign peace treaties with nations. He even allowed these people to practice their own religion. So just like in the Bible, God had wars. And concerning the terrorist thing. Islam does not condone terrorism. Jihad extremists kill in the name of Allah because they believe it is their duty to protect Islam from the west. However, the Quran and Islam is against this. Allah is a merciful God, and is the same God as the God of Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. And don't tell me that Christians don't kill because they claim their God told them to, it's in every religion. http://www.sullivan-county.com...
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word. No one has posted

"However, it seems that the late Christians(underline late) were actually during Constantine's(Council of Nicaea) time. "The First Council of Nicaea in 325 is commonly used to mark the end of early Christianity...""http://en.wikipedia.org...... Please note that Constantine converted from paganism or some other religion so this couldn't possibly mean that Constantine invented Christianity if there were already Christians living in Rome at the time and he was converted. "The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great converted to Christianity following his victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312."http://en.wikipedia.org...; He invented MODERN Christianity. The religion taken by more than 2 times as many Islams. Does it not seem the good Lord would want his word out to the most people? "I have a question for the Godhand, what about David? Do you think just because David was a simple shepherd who loved to tend to his flock of sheep and sing songs unto the Lord, was not sane enough to run a country. Because, obviously according to your Bible it says that David was handpicked BY GOD through Samuel to anoint David to become king. Obviously after Saul's death, David became one of the greatest kings who ever lived. He was obviously sane enough to run a country after Saul. And he reigned over a big country don't you think. So your argument there is week, because if David can do it, why can't Mohammed(PBUH)?" Mohammed never became emperor. "And you do know that Mohammed(PBUH) conquered Mecca with a force of more than ten thousand men and with minimal casualites, took control of it. Think now, Mohammed had conflicts with the Meccans because he threatened to get rid of the religion of their fathers and the meccans had a pretty large army. http://en.wikipedia.org...... People even submitted to Islam because of this man after the Battle of Tabuk because they were afraid of being attacked. http://en.wikipedia.org...... So, for a shepherd, this man sure did succeed in uniting and reigning over kingdoms. And Islam is also one of the fastest growing religions, so keep that in mind. Also realize, this man wasn't literate, he couldn't read or write his own name and look at the word he produced. Some people were converted to Islam because of the Quran's poetry, you can't say that's not a work from God." Would your merciful God kill men by the thousands when he could simply send a force of ten thousand missionaries to do the same? Your hateful and unloving God disgusts me. And still terrorists attack us in Allah's name.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word. No one has posted

First of all, you left me with the burden of having nothing of your debate to work on. Thanks. Anyway, here is my argument. The Bible is God's word because- First of all, the Bible came before the Qu'ran. Does it not seem like the Father in Heaven would want to get his word down to us as soon as possible? Second, Biblical end times are more "in sync" with modern events (Israel being reunited and such.) Third, Islam was invented by a shepherd/merchant, where as Christianity was invented by Emperor Constantine. I follow the one mentally stable enough to run a country. The Godhand
Chess (Full resolution in first round)

Full Resolution: As a chess coach, you should not teach your student to become a chess player, but to teach them to appreciate the game. I am PRO, therefore arguing to that given resolution. My opponent (CON) will be arguing against that resolution. BOP is shared. Rules of this debate: First round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY No new arguments in last round. Last round for final rebuttals, defence and summarisation. Definitions: Chess player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc. Chess coach: A person who teaches an adult or a child to improve their ability to play the game of chess. Appreciate: To be grateful, to recognise the beauty of etc. (definition should be clear in the context of this debate).Other definitions should be common sense. And of course, no semantics and trolling. I hope both my opponent and I will gain something from this debate after it is finished. Good Luck!
The finely tuned universe leads to a deduction that higher consciousness exists

It is interesting when Con talks about a higher consciousness, it is assumed to be a form of supernatural magic. I propose that higher consciousness capable of design can be part of the natural order of things. The relationship of the higher consciousness to this universe could be similar to that of an animal to its body. Consider the human being. As far as we are aware, the human is the highest level of consciousness on this planet, yet within each of us contains millions of individual organic living beings. The lives of these organic beings are controlled, to a degree, by the host animal. There are many things that affect the lives of these organic beings including DNA, chance and conscious choice. We can choose to live a healthy life, exercise, take medicines and even shape our bodies to a degree. To the small lives within us, we are their god – so to speak. Nature has provided countless examples of higher consciousness supporting lower consciousness and it is not considered magic. I chose the word higher consciousness instead of God in this debate because we cannot assume any creation has actually occurred, yet science shows fine tuning has. A body builder does a similar thing. The other "naturalistic" possibilities all rely on the existence of multiple universes. Until these other verses are proven to exist, we can only speculate on what it means. There are many sacred texts say something like "In my lords house, there are many rooms". Until more information is acquired, the logical conclusion is that a higher consciousness has shaped the universe to a degree. The infinities that pop up from this kind of thinking can be handled using a recycling approach. After greatness comes simplicity. Con has quoted "This would suggest a malevolent creator that wants us to remain ignorant of our origins." Another view is that the higher consciousness has provided a path for mankind to increase his/her knowledge progressively over time. Can you imagine a world where everything is already known and there is nothing to discover? I referred to the idea of considering the whole, not only the parts because this is the point where science and reason go different ways. It has become a habit of scientists to brush these flukes aside. Once the habit is formed it is easy to repeat. Logic dictates that you can only do this for so long, and then you must think again. I will grant that the number of flukes easily ignored is different for each person. This number might be the difference between a spiritual person and an atheist. Perhaps the flukes or coincidences are a way the higher consciousness communicates with us. It may only be through reason and not just science that we can progress in certain directions.
Solving the Gay Marriage Issue on a way that everyone can agree

I would like to start this round by apologizing for saying the word "whites" instead of "strait." I have aboslutely no idea where that come from. I will now start my rebuttal. "You have already labeled my word "Garried" derogatory, when I was very clear that it was intended as a place holder; is there something wrong with calling a union between a man and a woman different from a union between two men or two women?" I was merely making the point that this an extremely derogatory term when it comes to dealing with the marriage of two homosexual people. That is all. As far as your second point, I do believe that I clearly put forth a statment of fact refuting that fact in my last argument, namely that it violates the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education, when the Supreme Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal, which is exactly what you are proposing against them. "The very question is necessary to understand the fabric of the person before you, yet requires an extra question about sexuality that I really don't care to ask." The point that I am making is that it should not matter whether they are gay or strait. Whether that particular person is married to a person of the same, or opposite sex should make absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is a learned habit that makes people think the way that they do about gay people that can change, but the laws have to change first. A good example of this is the dying out of racism in the United States. Compared to 50 years ago, there are markedly less racists in the United States today. The same can and will be the case should gay marriage be legalized throughout the nation. "Gays have all of the rights that straights do." This is an absolute and unequivocal lie. It has been well documented that gays do not have the same rights as straits. On the news the other day, they had a special about how a number of Fortune 500 companies have a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the company. http://www.hrc.org... In addition to this, there are gay couples who have been in Civil Unions for as much as 20 years, but should one of them die, the other, in most cases, is left with no financial support, even after their grievous loss. Here is a story of a gay couple, which I think you'll find quite disturbing. http://www.marriagefairness.org... In closing, I have addressed all of your arguments and look forward to your response!