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

Affirmative assertion #1: the benefit of racially integrated. Evidence: no group of kids is stronger than the other. Evidence: kids feel safe, less bullied, and less lonely. Evidence: later on in life you"re going to work with diversity people. Affirmative assertion #2: kids will be safe. Evidence: kids will be closer to home. Evidence: all the same kind of race. Evidence: kids will go to neighborhood schools Affirmative assertion #3: U.S. supreme court law Evidence: kids will go to school and not take buses Evidence: we don"t need the police to reinforce the law Evidence: no more problems
Are blunts better than joint papers

Smoking more weed may not necessary get you more high, if you're a regular user with high tolerance. I've myself experience the "Stoned Wall" where you just smoke and smoke and it just makes you dumb and sleepy, none of the nice affects of highness like giggles and creative thought. Also, getting more high is not necessarily the best experience. A moderate high is how my friends and I have always enjoyed ourselves best. A habit of moderate use will get you higher per toke, that is, it take less weed (and less money, risk, and hassle) to get high if you don't smoke a cigar-sized joint three times a day. Flavoured papers are pretty bad for your health, so that's not necessarily good. But there exist a preponderance of them for weed users, available at all head shops.
Tiger Woods will win the Masters.

I'll take this challenge. I am a big golf fan and golfer, but I really think that the odds of Tiger winning are very low. He put up a -2 in the first round, which is currently 4 back from the leader. I thought the same thing before the tournament happened. There are about 100 competing and you are trying to pick the 1. With golf being such an inconsistent sport, that is hard to do. Personally, I think that Rickie Fowler is finally going to break through and get the win, even though I don't like Fowler. I just don't think that you can pick this early. You have a 1/93 chance.
Gum in School (REVISED)

Thanks again PeacefulChaos!!!! I will state my reasons with "R". Please try to make the arguments to the point( no super long paragraphs). Sorry if my arguments aren't that good. I'm very, very young!! R1: Gum has studies that show that gum helps students focus and learn better. Andrew Scholey has made discoveries that have shown that gum improves our short-term memory. Therefore, students will remember facts and understand concepts better. Also, kids work better when there is something slightly distracting going on. A.K.A. CHEWING GUM! :) The sugar in gum allows the students to have extra sugar dose and helps them stay awake in class. R2: Gum in school provides an open teacher-student relationship. Because most schools don't allow gum in school,(which I hope will change) kids would have to sneak in gum when the teacher is not looking. That makes the student dishonest to their teacher, thus feeling guilty. If gum is allowed in school, children wouldn't have to feel guilty and sneak in gum, for they are allowed to freely eat and bring gum in school. Teachers and students would then feel trustworthy together, and build a better relationship. R3: Gum allows kids to choose healthier foods. Many studies have shown that gum allows kids to choose healthier foods. If a student chews gum before lunch, they are bound to eat less high-calorie foods because they already satisfied their sugary craving. With only one stick of gum, kids would stop eating fatty, sugary foods during snack and lunch. Also, because of gum, kids wouldn't be hungry during class. There have been many students' stomachs' empty and grumbling, so they would have a hard time concentrating on the classwork. Solution: Gum! =] Thank you once again, and I wait eagerly for your argument. Happy debating!
Gum in School (REVISED)

It's no big deal. At least the real debate begins! Anyways, just so there is no miscommunications, I will copy and paste what I posted in the last debate in R1 so we all know what the BOP is. "I thank my opponent for instigating this debate, and I look forward to the following rounds. When Pro states that she believes gum should be allowed in school, I am under the assumption that she means gum should be allowed to be used in school; thus, the BOP will look like this:BOP-My opponent, Pro, will argue that gum should be allowed to be used in school. I, Con, will argue that gum should not be allowed to be used in school.I look forward to Pro's arguments, and I hand over the next round to her."Well, good luck Pro!
minecraft is the best video game

1. I don't think you took in consideration anything besides the Terraria argument meaning the rest of my arguments stand tall. 2. Terraria also has mods, you just don't need them as much since there already is plenty of ores and such. 3. Terraria is cheaper as I said making it better financially. Even if you can say Minecraft is better in-game than Terraria, you can't deny it is cheaper which for me is much better since I like saving my money for something important. 4. I've seen plenty of YouTube videos to know that there are mods for that.
minecraft is the best video game

I accept I will be debating Minecraft is NOT the best video game. I already have a few points that say it is NOT. 1. It is a matter of opinion Just because people think Minecraft is the best game doesn't make it the best. I can say Russia is the best country ever and that doesn't make the best. 2. Even taking opinion in the matter these sources disprove it being the best game. http://www.popularmechanics.com... http://www.gamesradar.com... 3, Terraria is better in basically every aspect besides 3D graphics. More gear, more ores, more bosses, more enemies, less expensive, less of a need for mods since everything is all in the package, unless you want to do something like fight King Arthur, over the summer it only costs 2 dollars instead of the original 10 dollars.
Feminists are ruining the U.S.A.

In this round, I shall counter your explanations and summarize my argument. I shall also leave links to my sources. 1) Feminists do not automatically have rights by definition. Just because they are advocating rights does not mean that they already have them. 2) Feminists have not ruined any classics. The Star Wars franchise has made some movies with female leads. The least-earning box office Star Wars movies with and without female leads are “A New Hope,” which earned about $534K, and “Rogue One,” earning $1.05M (The Numbers). This means that feminism has likely boosted the economy of the Star Wars franchise, for it has earned more money than previous, non-female lead movies. This is far from the definition of “ruined.” The movies have helped the economy, not injure it. 3) Feminists are angered because of the memes, but that does not mean they have ruined the United States of America in the process. Being angered at memes does not ruin the United States of America, leaving this explanation irrelevant and pointless. 4) Modern Feminists do not understand what feminism is, but that doesn’t ruin anything other than feminism. The United States of America has not been ruined by the slow downfall of feminism. It simply means that they have ruined feminism, which does not affect the majority of the United States. Final Tally: That gives you no arguments against my three. Dear readers, feminists have not caused violence in the United States of America. Feminists have made some positive effects on the world, such as encouraging movie diversity. They have also convinced workers to appreciate females in the leadership positions of the workplace. Therefore, feminists are not ruining the United States of America. I would also like to thank my opponent for a considerably well-structured debate. Sources: http://www.dictionary.com... http://news.gallup.com... https://www.the-numbers.com...
Feminists are ruining the U.S.A.

I agree with your above definition. I, too, hope for a respectful debate I shall use the following definition for "ruin": to injure (a thing) irretrievably, -Dictionary.com Counter Claim: Feminists are not ruining the U. S. A. 1) Feminists have not caused any violence in the United States of America. 2) Feminists have encouraged diversity and originality in art, such as in Star Wars. 3) There was a lack of female preference for leadership fields in the 1900s, but as feminism increased, female preference for leadership fields (and leadership field indifference) has increased since then (Gallup). In the next round, I shall attempt to deconstruct your premises, as well as summarize mine. Also, you have failed to give an example of "modern feminists." I am hoping for a definition of that.
Feminists are ruining the U.S.A.

I am looking forward to a respectful debate. Without further a do, my args are in. CLAIM: Feminists are ruining the U.S.A (Note I am talking about the feminists, not feminism as a whole) 1)Feminists have equal rights already according to defintion DEFINITION PROVIDED BY DICTIONARY.COM the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. 2)Feminists have ruined all of our classics we had, ex. Star Wars 3)Modern Feminists are angered at the memes because they provoked them 4)Modern Feminists have a wrong idea of feminism I look forward to responses
Computers are better than books for studying

Rebuttals: 'Well for your point on academic information presented in books is easier to memorize than it is when outlined on a computer. This is not really true because you could copy and paste it, or bookmark it on a computer. In my opinion as a student, I feel more biased copying and pasting or bookmarking (taking 3-8 seconds) versus writing the If you think that books are better, I see your point, because books have to be verified before they can be printed, however, you can seek verified sources on the internet from professional sites. ' However, unlike a book computers are electronic can thus not be taken everywhere. A book allows someone to fully absorb the information they're learning because we're more inclined to read books in their entirety, instead of casually looking at pieces of information that is presented in electronic form. When something is read and followed from page-to-page, one learns from the context is and how it applies to what they are studying - that is his books are of greater benefit to the memory; you become better acquainted with them. I'd also add that electronic devices (and this goes back to my previous point about multitasking) are generally used in more hectic environments *and* a student is more likely to multitask - whereas when people read books, they prefer to read them in environments that are quiet - so, they can concentrate more. As for Pros last point, I have an actual source that states students prefer books to electronic devices so their assertion is negated. I can understand Pros argument on the portability of electronic devices but this is mostly dependant on where/how you study. If you study on a desk at school and home, then the size of books really shouldn't matter - all you have to do is get them to and from school. People have been educating themselves for years *without* the size of books impeding them so it seems obvious to me that there is no great issue in using them over electronic devices.
Computers are better than books for studying

Well, for your point on academic information presented in books is easier to memorize than it is when outlined on a computer. This is not really true because you could copy and paste it, or bookmark it on a computer. In my opinion as a student, I feel more biased copying and pasting or bookmarking(taking 3-8 seconds) versus writing the If you think that books are better, I see your point, because books have to be verified before they can be printed, however, you can seek verified sources on the internet from professional sites. Additionally, would you want it to be portable? Or do you prefer it to be a burden to carry around? We have a math links 7 textbook which is about 500 pages long. Would you want to lug that around? Or, an electronic PDF on your device? In my classroom, basically, all my classmates voted that they would prefer an electronic copy over a hard copy. I'm not saying that books are a bore, as I read every day, but, it's that just for studying, I'd prefer computers any day. A wide range of information, very portable, very useful.Thank you and good luck.
Computers are better than books for studying

Accepted. Seeing as there's only 2000 characters, I will try to keep my arguments simple and concise. Opening Argument: The academic information presented in books is easier to memorise than it is when outlined on a computer. Obviously, computers are beneficial for writing presentations/essays, etc. but in regards to actual studying, a book is preferable. One reason why it's easier to absorb information from a book is because that when you read a book, your attention is focused on it. You stare at each page intently, reflect on what you're reading, and make a note of the important and relevant sentences/words - without disruption or distraction. However, with a computer or e-book, the temptation to multitask or take breaks from studying is greater. [1.] https://www.theguardian.com... [2.] http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk... In addition, if you specifically think of certain subjects (chemistry, biology) it is essential to study through books and have a plain notepad with you - as sequence structures, measurements and formulas have to be memorised and then drawn onto the examination paper completely *without* error. This also applies to the subject of art, as the student is naturally required to draw and thus needs paper materials to do it. If asked, I'm quite sure students of English literature + language would also state that they prefer to use books for studying. If you use a book, you can quite literally write whatever you want down and use a marker pen, and return to it or re-read it whenever you wish to. Most college students in the U.S would in fact rather use printed textbooks than anything computer-based. [3.] https://qz.com...
Computers are better than books for studying

Sure, computers are the cause of weight gaining , eye problems, and obesity, but no one tells you to sit at computer all day just looking at the screen. You could move around every half an hour to just look around and relax your eyes.(this really helps me) Nowadays, there are a lot of new technologies included in computers, like read and write that reads the selected text on a screen(you have to get the extension from the web store), and high contrast mode, which reduces the amount of white glare coming from the computer screen, just to list a few.
Catholicism is a way better religion than yours

Alright you said "in the beginning God created the universe, which made people angry and regarded as a bad move", but later you also say ur fake "god" made "the universe while he was drunk" so people like you regarded Ur fake idol decision as a bad move and made people very angry, you must be furious at Ur monster right now aren't you, what a shame. Where did you get your info that God is prideful? huh you need quotes senora. And yeah you are correct on one think he doesn't do anything wrong that's why he's GOD! If he made mistakes he wouldn't be concerned God, he'll be concerned as another person, because human beings make mistakes, because we are only human and not perfect, we're not God. Well of course Ur monster will make mistakes and a bunch of mistakes for the fact too, because He's a monster and monsters are dumb for example the cookie monster, he eats every cookie he sees. How does ur food monster admit his mistakes does he talk to you, my food doesn't talk to me, maybe that weed of yours makes you start hearing things. You also said hes like an average guy, if hes like an average guy what makes him different from the rest? Hey look its optimus prime, time to transform and roll out , all hail optimus. pshh yeah right. How can u call him a guy when hes pasta, hes food, and during "the creation" when he was getting drunk did he invite Mr pizza man to join him? You said that "That's a bit grotesque, right? Certainly heaven has to be so great that is makes up for all this! " well yeah it probly is worth it and its better than earth, and you have never been to heaven so how do you know how it's like. Being dopey dumb on drugs and "going to heaven" doesn't count sorry! Wow your heaven of yours is dumb, if all that is in earth, shouldn't there be a difference. come on strip factories don't tell me u want to continue your job when your dead come on, cochina See you don't even know if your food religion has a purgatory, you probably been giving me all false information! watch the food channel and get yourself educated, and try to find better recipes so your spaghetti so that it doesn't turn ugly and turn to a monster and put salsa on it to maybe that's what it needs. And yeah the beads are cool that's probly what we have in our heaven. because my religion is universal that's what catholic mean fyi. Your belief in "hell" is dumb to cuz what that's difference and why does it matter if there's STD's your dead who gives you cant die again. Sounds like your information of your spagitti monster isn't efficient enough, even you don't know much of it based on your arguments, you and your spagitti belong in the kitchen,nvm if you cant handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Wow floja you cant be lazy go big or go home, just spend less time on that weed and more time on those books. I'll explain my catholic arguments later, lets just say I serve your religion this round. OOh dang I'm beast
Catholicism is a way better religion than yours

My gratitude towards my opponent for instigating such a fine debate of civil caliber! =DFor clarification, my side will be defending Pastafarianism!CATHOLIC GOD VS. THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERThis is good place to start. The centers that our religions revolve around are their most high and divine being.What are their opposing attributes and how do they stand up against one another?In the beginning, God created the universe! This has since made a lot of people angry and is largely regarded as a bad move.The Catholic God, Yahweh, has never been said to have expressed any sort of guilt or apology about this. The central tenet of Yahweh's character is that he prideful. Apparently nothing he ever does is wrong! Yet he demands his follows constantly confess their own faults. What a hypocrite.The FSM on the hand, well, he is no perfect God by a long-shot. In-fact, he's made many, if not all ,of the same mistakes as Yahweh. The big difference? He confesses to it! Truth is he's just an average guy. He tries to do the right thing but some times messes up. He freely admits that he was drunk during the creation of the universe. This is one reason Pastafarianism is better than Catholicism.THE AFTERLIFEThe afterlife attributed to Yahweh and the afterlife attributed to FSM are two radically different things.In the Catholic conception of Yahweh, there is a Heaven, Hell and Purgatory.Hell is a place where, if you did not confess your faith to God, you will be tortured for all eternity, with differing levels of intensity.Purgatory is a place where you will be tortured temporarily to "purge" yourself of yours sins before you get to go to heaven.That's a bit grotesque, right? Certainly heaven has to be so great that is makes up for all this! Turns out heaven is a place where you get to worship God and further inflate his ego for all eternity. Yippee!As for the Pastafarian conception?(hold on, it's 4:20 while I'm typing this, brb)(ok, back)In FSM's heaven, there is a BEER VOLCANO and A STRIPPER FACTORY! Hell yyyyyyyyyyyeah. FSM doesn't need your worship (though he does like it occasionally). He just wants to chill, man.There ain't no muthersuckin purgatory. Idk, there might be. Like a waiting room or something. With those little toys made for toddlers that look like rollercoasters...you know, with the beads? Yeah, those are fun. I always play with those.Hell, on the other hand, is very similar to heaven except the beer is stale and all the strippers have STDS.Sounds to me like FSM is, well, pretty much a whole lot less of a douchebag when it comes to the afterlife. And this is another reason why Pastafarianism is better than Catholicism.And I'll save the rest for later. Mostly cause I'm too lazy to type any further.
Is the Hennessey Venom GT faster than the bugatti

Pro claims that the Hennessy Venom GT is faster than the Bugatti. However, this is not always true.Let's approach this problem from two different viewpoints with 2 different assumptions. The two viewpoints are the only possible viewpoints in this case, other than "if it does not agree with my opinions, it is false". Proving tfhat pro's case is false in both cases allows us to know for certain that pro's case is false in all cases.Assumption 1. For the Hennessy Venom GT to be faster than the Bugatti, it must be faster than it in all cases. Argument 1 based on assumption 1: In physics, all frames of reference are correct. If one uses a frame of reference that moves with the Venom GT in a race with the Bugatti, then the Venom GT will stand still, making it slower than the Bugatti. As this shows that the Venom is not necessarily faster than the Bugatti, assuming assumption 1 to be true, pro's case is untrue.Argument 2 based on assumption 1: The Hennessy Venom GT is not faster than the Bugatti in all cases; they all offer options to control speed, allowing either to be faster than the other.Assumption 2. The Hennessy Venom GT does not have to be faster than the Bugatti in all cases in order to be faster than the Bugatti.Argument based on assumption 2: If assumption 2 is true, then the inverse also applies: the Bugatti does not always have to be faster than the Hennessy Venom for it to be faster than the Venom. This means that the Bugatti can be faster than the Venom.
Is the Hennessey Venom GT faster than the bugatti

All about that bass is popular, but when you paraphrase it, its message seems a bit rambly. You ought to know that I prefer bass more than treble. Yes, it is obvious--I am not generally considered slim--however, I am able to shake my posterior--which I ought to do. I have a posterior; my posterior is attractive to male youth--it is large in the correct places. I dislike how magazines "photoshop" models to make them appear the way society wants them to appear--even though we all know that the photoshopped images have been tampered with. This practice should stop. One's beauty is natural--it can be inner beauty, too--and should not be messed around with; one's entire body is flawless, from one's head to one's toe. My mother once told me not to worry about my appearance: male youth often enjoy touching posteriors while sleeping at night. I am not an anorexic stickfigure, nor a "barbie doll" who was manufactured through plastic surgery--if you enjoy people like them, I am not for you. I am attempting to make posteriors more popular in pop culture: I am bringing "booty" back. If you are skinny, and think that you are fat, then you should not worry about your size: all of your body is perfect.