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

Affirmative Session 1- In 9174, school busing was court-ordered, only strategy -Kids needed a better education -They did not want to mix -Kids went to neighborhood schools Affirmative session 2- court-ordered desegregation causes more harm -Lack of culture -Chance of violence -Schools are still separate Affirmative session 3- Kids benefit from integration -There is less bullying -It is safer for kids -Kids are less lonely
courts have the responsibilty to create racially balanced schools.

1)Negative assertion: In 1974 court ordered busing wasn"t the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston"s public schools. Other options would be to give other options and more choices. Where you live is your choice so schools aren"t segregated by law. These options would cause less violence. 2)Negative assertion: Students and society will not benefit from more children attending racially integrated schools. The surveys may not be right. This may only work in a poor community. Some of the groups won"t stick together. 3)Negative assertion: To create a desegregated school system a judge should not be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. They should allow six choices and larger "zones". The new plan gives inequality due to the fact the judge could send all minorities to different schools then whites. This plan would give equality to blacks, Latinos and other minorities.
Amazon.com is better, cheaper, and more efficient than Ebay.com

Sorry, but I didn't have time to post my second argument, but thanks for your fast reply. Hi is am on the Con side of this resolution: Amazon.com is better, cheaper, and more efficient than Ebay.com. Contention 1- Ebay is better than Amazon is because it can help costumers sell stuff online. As everyone know Ebay and Amazon can sell stuff online, but eBay's is fees for selling are cheaper. Rebutts 1. Amazon is not always cheaper than ebay as the stop wath below. http://www.amazon.com... http://www.ebay.com...
Amazon.com is better, cheaper, and more efficient than Ebay.com

Before getting into my constructive argument, I would like to offer a few key points of clarification. = Framework = 1. As the instigator of this debate, my opponent has the burden of proof. Even despite the inverse of the wording of the resolution. Effectively, my opponent must prove that E-Bay is Better, Cheaper, and More efficient than Amazon. 2. A standard of argumentation must be upheld. My opponent gives himself three burdens to prove before a vote can be given to Con. To such an extend a vote for the con cannot even be considered until my opponent provides a standard to weigh these terms. Cheaper is the only exception, as the standard of cheap is inherently understood. = Arguments = 1. Better- As my opponent has yet to institute a standard by which we weigh the term "Better" I cannot build my argument here yet. So then I'll just go ahead and advocate a Pro vote here and plug in my warrant later. 2. Cheaper- Again, my opponent has the burden to prove that Ebay is cheaper in an absolute sense of the word. Meaning that if I can find even one object that is cheaper on Amazon than it is on ebay, I win. To that extend I offer you the Kindle Fire. Amazon's best selling item Amazon- $199[1] Ebay- $315.97 [2] 3. Efficient- Again there's no standard, so I can't readily provide a counter-argument as of yet. = Conclusion = As of now, there is no vote other than the Pro. My opponent has made no attempt to even establish any reason to vote for him. = Sources = [1] . http://www.amazon.com... [2] . http://www.ebay.com... #
The NAACP is racist.

===Definitions===The NAACP refers to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.http://www.naacp.org... Racism is behavior or beliefs motivated by racial stereotypes, it generally includes practices of racial discrimination, and ideologies of racial supremacy and hierarchy. Some sources emphasize that racism involves the belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others, or follow practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups, for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.http://en.wikipedia.org... The stated intentions of the NAACP are to "ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination."https://sites.google.com... ===I hereby accept this debate.===
The young-Earth theory is impossible

This argument is basically over since Pro did not understand the argument I was making. He clearly believes that showing my scenarios as improbable makes them impossible which is a serious mistake. This debate was never over probability but possibility. To show that YEC was impossible he needed to show that all of my scenarios were impossible which he did not do. He only argued that they were incredibally improbable. Pro claims "I fail to see how this is an "impossible burden of proof" since, like I said, I remember personally debunking them". His drastic misunderstanding of my arguments will cost him this debate. He failed to disprove any of my arguments. He did attempt to argue that science favors an old earth, and it does. All of my arguments circumvent that though by showing how science could possibly be mistaken. Overall Pro did not successfully disprove my arguments which was required to win this debate. "Overall during this debate you've been saying something along the lines which lead me to believe that you do not believe in the young-Earth scenario. This is in my opinion the most invalid thing said during this debate. I find it somewhat, well, stupid to argue on behalf of a belief that has nothing to do with yours. Anyway, thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to the final statement. "It is true, I believe YEC is improbable but would never go so far as to say impossible. That would be an impossible burden of proof. As fir arguing this debate it's important to play devil's advocate sometimes and explore both sides, though you couldn't really call this a deep look into creation "science". It was an impossible BoP and Pro failed to fulfill it. If any of my arguments are even remotely possible I win automatically.
The young-Earth theory is impossible

Excuse me, but I personally recall debunking those theories you suggested previously. I find my arguments good enough, but it's in no way my responsibility to make you like what I said. I find my previous statements completely valid, yet you say they are invalid. I'd like you to tell me why. Unfortunately for you, it's too late since this is my last chance for an argument. I hope you do realize that I supported many other theories, and I also remember debunking them. Incase you've forgotten, those theories were: The growing distance to the Moon, Organisms older than 6,000 years, Human Expansion and the Shrinking of the Sun. I fail to see how this is an "impossible burden of proof" since, like I said, I remember personally debunking them. If they're invalid to your eyes, well there's really not much I can do about that. Overall during this debate you've been saying something along the lines which lead me to believe that you do not believe in the young-Earth scenario. This is in my opinion the most invalid thing said during this debate. I find it somewhat, well, stupid to argue on behalf of a belief that has nothing to do with yours. Anyway, thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to the final statement.
The young-Earth theory is impossible

Pro has apparently misunderstood my argument so I will clarify. Because Pro has affirmed the resolution "Young Earth Creationism is Impossible" as fact, all I have to do to win is propose possibilities. If any of my proposals is even possible, no matter how improbable, I win the debate. I provided three possibilities that would allow Young Earth Creationism to be correct.1. Global Conspiracy- Every Old Earth advocate is a part of a conspiracy2. A God- A God created a young earth that appeared old3. Extreme Equipment Malfunctions- Every confirmation of an old earth has actually been a result of a severe equipment malfunction.All of these scenarios are incredibly unlikely, but that is not the same as impossible. All of these situations are possible. Probability does not matter here. Pro affirmed the impossibility of something, and I have given three possibilities. Pro has pointed out that these are all incredibly unlikely but that is actually irrelevant. Since they are all possible they completely defeat the resolution. In order for Pro to win he must prove that all 3 of these possibilities are actually not possible at all which he has failed to do. All of my possibilities also work around Pro's arguments in that if any of them were true, which is possible, then his arguments would be irrelevant and fail. Pro has an impossible burden of proof because he must prove that several things are actually impossible to uphold the resolution.
The young-Earth theory is impossible

You say I must prove that all and any suggestions of a young-Earth scenario are irrelevant. Well that would be a lot easier if I actually knew all suggestions, perhaps you could tell them to me, and I could attempt to prove them wrong. I see you didn't provide and arguments in your last argument, so right now I really cannot prove said suggestions wrong. Look like I'll have to rely on google.com The Moon is getting further and further: We all know that the Moon is receding around 3cm a year, therefore many creationists say that if the Moon really was billions of years old, then it would've already left earth's gravity. A simple calculations can prove them wrong. The oldest living organism is 4,000 years old: Many say that the oldest living land organism is at a maximum of 4,000 years old. As the Bible says, the Great Flood happened around 4,000 years old, then obviously said living land organism must be one of the first to be planted. Right? Well there are living land organisms over 4,000 years old, like I said before, trees, and some are over 10,000 years old. Human Expansion: Another argument is that the human populations and expansion would have had just enough time after said flood to increase to around 7,000,000,000 people. I guess we all know that the huge acceleration of human expansion has started just a few hundred years ago. The Sun is shrinking: Many say that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of around five feet per hour. Like the Moon argument, they say that it would now be the size of an apple. Another quick calculations can prove it wrong. So there are a few examples, I really look forward to proving your theories wrong.
The young-Earth theory is impossible

Responses"Thank you, Con, for this rich and mature response from you."You are welcome. If you wanted a more serious debate perhaps you shouldn't have claimed you could prove something was impossible."Although some may think it to be completely ignorant, but yes, those statements you made about my opinion are true. I am absolutely sure that the young-earth "theory" presented by the Christian community, or by any party for that matter, is inaccurate."I also find it highly improbable. Unfortunately for you though, improbable is not the same thing as impossible.Global Conspiracy"I apologize for the manner in which I say this, but over 3/4s of the graduated individuals of this planet cannot be part of an "old earth" cult. I know I'm not."You have nothing to apologize for. It is absolutely possible that the majority of graduated individuals are part of a conspiracy. My job in this debate is to provide "possibilities" which would negate the resolution. Because you affirmed the "impossibility" of something you must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every possibility I propose. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion."If this were possible, there might as well be the same form of conspiracy in the Christian group, right? They are equally probable to my eyes."Obviously but you must disprove the possibility of a global conspiracy to uphold your resolution.The lack of a reason to spread this conspiracy is not proof it is not a possibility. I also provided a possible reason. To do away with the scientific reliability of religious books.A God"A God. A God that made a new planet seem old just to see how our little minds would progress the environment. You know, I had this very thought when I was a little child, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with you. I told it to my parents, and they decided it was not even probable."I will say it again, my proposals don't have to be probable, just possible. This also means it is possible that even the christian god made a young earth appear old. To disprove this proposal you must prove that the christian god would not decieve us. Since you cannot prove his intentions it is not possible.Extreme Equipment Malfunctions"I fail to see what you mean with this argument, but I guess you try to say that anything that has supported a young earth has suffered a malfunction...? I apologize in which manner I say this, but this is just... wow. Improbable."I assume you meant old earth instead of young earth. It is a possibility no matter how improbable. This being even remotely possible negates your resolution.1. Age of EntitiesAll of my proposed possibilites would negate this.Conclusion:My opponent has given himself an impossible BoP by affirming the impossibility of something. No matter how remote the probability, if any of my proposals are even possibe I win this debate. He must disprove them all to show no possibilities for a young earth exist.
The young-Earth theory is impossible

Thank you, Con, for this rich and mature response from you. Although some may think it to be completely ignorant, but yes, those statements you made about my opinion are true. I am absolutely sure that the young-earth "theory" presented by the Christian community, or by any party for that matter, is inaccurate. For my counter-arguments: 1: Global Conspiracy I apologize for the manner in which I say this, but over 3/4s of the graduated individuals of this planet cannot be part of an "old earth" cult. I know I'm not. If this were possible, there might as well be the same form of conspiracy in the Christian group, right? They are equally probable to my eyes. Now, as an Atheist, I see not a reason why I could spread said conspiracy. This is why: There never was one. I find it impossible that an evolutionist turned creationist would think as I do, and after becoming a creationist, why wouldn't he spread this secret only evolutionists know of? 2: A God A God. A God that made a new planet seem old just to see how our little minds would progress the environment. You know, I had this very thought when I was a little child, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with you. I told it to my parents, and they decided it was not even probable. Look, if a God wanted is to know it existed (as the Bible tells us), it would let us know. It wouldn't make all these facts just to laugh at us and think to itself how funny we are. I trust you read the comments, and I also trust that you know that right now I'm mostly referring to a Christian God. And by definition, a God is a supreme entity with incredible power, so please don't say "by "God" I meant an idea". 3: Extreme Equipment Malfunctions I fail to see what you mean with this argument, but I guess you try to say that anything that has supported a young earth has suffered a malfunction...? I apologize in which manner I say this, but this is just... wow. Improbable. Now, for my main argument: 1: Age of Entities So, many creationists believe that all of existence is around 6,000 years old. Well, I have one argument which I believe counters that completely: there are things over 6,000 years old. And by things I mean trees. Yes, there are trees around 4,000 years older than what creationists believe the all of existence is. And considering that nothing could have survived the "great flood", the oldest living thing, apart from sea plants, could be at a maximum of 4,000 years old. Now, you may argue that there are situations in which trees produce more than just one ring per year. But of course, we all know, or should know, that there are other methods for how we can determine an organism's age. These include radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology. There, I happily await Con's answers.
The young-Earth theory is impossible

Before I begin I will point out that my opponent has affirmed the resolution as a complete fact. Pro is not dealing in probabilities here. No matter how improbable my responses they will completely negat his statement. Therefore if I can even show one scenario where young earth creationism is even possible I will win. Possibility 1: Global Conspiracy It is possible, unlikely but possible, that every scientist and regular person to ever advocate an old earth is part of an enormous conspiracy. The existence of this organization is not well known because of there habit of brainwashing all members into becoming billion year old earth and evolutionist propaganda. This organization has been around since before the time of Darwin, always gaining power and becoming an immense threat to society intent on destroying the well known scientific reliability of religious books through their manufactured and fake "science". This situation is possible. Possibility 2: A God It is possible that a god created a young earth but merely made it appear old. Such a situation would explain all the scientific evidence for an old earth and maintain the possibility of a young earth. A situation like this is possible and negates the resolution. Possibility 3: Extreme Equipment Malfunctions The odds of every piece of equipment that has supported a young earth having an extreme malfunction is probably about 1 in 10 raised to the trillionth power. Unfortunately for my opponent though a very low probability does not equat to impossible. This is possible and negates the resolution. Conclusion I agree with my opponent that a young earth is improbable. Pro has however given himself an impossible resolution to defend by claiming it is impossible.
Convert Me To Your Religion (Christian)

I believe that my opponent cannot convert me to his religion. To win he must convert me to his religion, and believe me, I'm gullible. This is done by (recommendations): -Provide evidence supporting the existence of a higher being. -Provide reasoning that science is less important than religion. -Prove that miracles were not hoaxes. -Prove that being religious would benefit me. (Clarification: Only try to convert me to christianity, not Bahai, Unitarian Universalist, etc.) I thank my opponent in advance. Let the chaos begin.
God is not to blame for suffering of any sort.

My counter-argument will be that since God (assuming the god of the bible exists) is the un-caused cause of everything (the universe), and therefore is ultimately the cause of (and is responsible for) the suffering of human beings and animals. My "weapon of choice" will be a cold war era AK47... just kidding... I plan on using rational and logical arguments to prove that the Bible narrative pertaining to the sacrifice of Jesus is nonsensical and in no way demonstrates that God is loving, just or wise, but that it has the opposite effect.
Endangered Species are protected more than Humans (A Debate about Abortion)

Basically if you are for abortion than you don't believe every human is equal...it is unfair that a baby must be killed. What if Einstein was aborted? Not KILLED, mind you, but ABORTED. (Not that there's a difference...) Endangered species is not irrelevant because it is the topic to this debate! What we are talking about here is the society. The general people in America have put more money into killing babies than helping them, and they have put more money into protecting endangered species than into protecting babies. Let me ask you: which is more important, endangered animals who don't do anything important to help us, or humans? If you said animals DO help us and, besides, humans are over-populating, that would be equal to saying that not every human is special, am I not correct? in what way is abortion "permissible"? I can't understand how anyone can possibly think killing humans is OK.
Endangered Species are protected more than Humans (A Debate about Abortion)

To begin, Yes, I do understand your argument and again, I will restate what I said earlier is that you needed to clarify your argument. The way I see this debate turning out to a tie because you wasted one round by failing to address the issue I stated earlier. The reason why I wanted you to clarify your defense is that I believe abortion is permissible under certain circumstances. However, the endangerend speicies act is irrelevent to this debate. Please explain to me how protecting animals has anything to do with the human race and our moral standards. The endangered species act was signed as a way to protect animals from dying out. Roe vs. Wade was about abortion. If you don't know what abortion is, I will give you the defintion from Merriam-Webster:: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: asa : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriageb : induced expulsion of a human fetusc : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion So again, please tell me how Roe vs. Wade, a court settlement on abortion has anything to do with saving animals? Moreover your talk about being fair and to the human race again is irrelevant because under the Social Contract Theory, one can state that animals do not have the same rights as humans. Aren't babies more valuable than animals, or have we changed our mind about the propering of a country? Isn't the next generation more important than our wild areas?!So I'm not even gonna address this statement for this is an absurd comment. Buut as a fun fact, you gotta realize that humans are OVERPOPULATING the earth. As in, humans are using the earth's resources at a faster rate than the earth can maintain. If we continue at this rate, scientists predict a large drop off in population, i.e. another endemic will happen that will kill off a huge percentage of the population.