BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it

High School athletics plays a vital role in both keeping our children healthy and prepared for the real world. Also, with the obese epidemic happening we should encourage outside sports/play. Personally I played football in high school, it not only taught me how to become a leader but also a follower. I believe it also gave me passion and drive. Moreover, it taught me self discipline and how to work well with others. Teachers giving special treatment to a student athlete is wrong, and that should be reported to administration. Sports such as football and basketball actually make more revenue then it costs to run the activity/game. At my High School the football program made enough money to support the whole athletic department (Soccer, tennis, basketball, football, golf, wrestling, swimming). This doesn't include the revenue from basketball either. Though this may not be true at all schools I'm sure the athletic department doesn't need to much support from the schools fund. Another thing is, you don't need to be pumped up for a mock trial or a academic argument, and those things arnt interesting to the general population. So a pep rally for those activity's would be worthless. I'll end this Round with a quote " Many of us remember some competitive activity, usually in high school, that became a vital force in our adolescence. It gave us a self-awareness and self-confidence that changed us forever. None of us read all of the 481,563 articles published last year on the early life and struggles of the soon-to-be president of the United States, but most of us know that if Barack Obama had not discovered basketball he would not have become the leader he is today. " The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com..., By Jay Mathews.
high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it

In the last 16 years I have been in school, athletes have been given special benefits due to the fact that they were stars of the school team. Instead of actually doing the work, the teachers let them slide so they could play in the big game. High school athletics are paid more attention than education itself. There are no pep assemblies for the academic team or for mock trial or other clubs. Therefore to much attention is being paid to high school athletics
Objectivism

Then we don't disagree, And this sounds like a concession. If I did disagree I would require evidence. I guess I can say I think therefore I am. I think you miss what objectivism is. I did agree to the definition but objectivism from Ayn Rand starts off with the premise reality is objective. I think that was the assumption and everything else after that is considered fact based of the assumption. Other than the existence of oneself. - Did you state this so does reality come into line with this? Objectivism isn't supposed to be built off of assumptionsI think the assumption has to be we exist so that there can be objectivism. A fact is not a fact because multiple people agree on ithttps://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/fact The first definition was something that has actual existence. What is fact if we cannot assume on existence or if our perception is real? Reason is not a physical object that exists. It does mean it exists non-physically. Would reason also be hindered by our perception? I did make the argument that reason might not be called the same thing but what it does will carry on with intelligent species given enough time.
Objectivism

I will italicize all quotes from my opponent and work from there, If I did not quote portions of what my opponent said, It's because I saw no reason to refute it or saw a need to comment on it. I will also add words in my opponent's quotes that would be assumed based off of context in brackets. "We don't know [that our perceptions are right/wrong] and can't know until we gain 6th sense of some sort or an out of body experience that can be repeatable. As of right now we do not know" (words in brackets were added by me in order to make context clear, )but anyone who read this knows that what I put in brackets is what my opponent meant)Then we don't disagree, And this sounds like a concession. My argument was based around that objectivism relies on the axiom "my perceptions are correct" to be a true statement. Since you hadn't refuted that objectivism has its base arguments stem from that axiom, And conceded that we can't know the axiom is true or false, This sounds like a major win for me as con. "We have to assume we exist. If we don't then nothing can be factual and everything is subjective. "You should choose words carefully. Objectivism isn't supposed to be built off of assumptions, And you used the word "assume". Objectivism is based off of what objectivists claim is objective evidence, Not assumptions. Please note the definitions I provided in round 1 that we both agreed to. "A question from me would be can't a fact be agreed upon or based on assumptions (we exist, This is fact away from feelings, Etc)? "A fact is not a fact because multiple people agree on it, That would border using an argumentum ad populum. Plus, The existence of other people can only be proven through one's own perceptions, Which you agreed that we can't know our perceptions are correct, Which means we don't know for certain other people exist, So we can't use their agreement with us as validation of a fact. "Reason is also a tool but if required feelings ceases to be reason. "Yes, Reason is another way to justify statements and ideas. That said, Reason is not a physical object that exists. Reason comes about through thougt processes of one's own mind, It makes it a part of the mind and oneself. Thus since my definition of objectivism clearly precludes things about oneself or one's own mind, Reason is not something that falls under objectivism. The self and reason are also ideas in competing philosophies hat aren't objectivist, Such as solipsism. Objectivism specifically refers to whether things physically exist, Not if they mentally or consciously do, Which reason falls under the latter.
Objectivism

No offence should be taken since we both start in the same round which I think is more fair. I would be using theories or not proven ideas but I hope you would take them seriously. To me objectivism can exist. The reason why I think it can exist is by using tools. This can be scanners or machines that are able to see the world. You might say we are still using our perception to perceive the different tool that was used to get a result. To that I say there is no way other that you can perceive the world without our 5 senses. Scanners are programmed by us to create facts. These facts rely on it being right, The machine not being faulty and the person's perception is not affected when seeing it (blindness). By this argument I think objectivism can exist if we are using any other things perception to view if our perception is right. I know my perceptions to be correctI think that is more of an assumption if not I would say the person is religious. how did you know the perceptions that perceived your perceptions to be wrong, Weren't' also wrong? We don't know and can't know until we gain 6th sense of some sort or an out of body experience that can be repeatable. As of right now we do not know. Objectivism is absolutely reliant on the assumption that one's own perceptions are accurate, For our perceptions are the only thing that can be used to prove to ourselves anything exists. We have to use our sight, Feeling, Hearing, Etc. We have to assume we exist. If we don't then nothing can be factual and everything is subjective. Which is the very definition of subjective. Yes and I think you are saying everything is subjective. To know is simply a lie and we all know what other people have applied rules to as a way to determine we know. Like a world in a world. An example of this would be chess. We know the rules of chess but lets say the chess pieces were alive do they know the rules that they were given? No. A question from me would be can't a fact be agreed upon or based on assumptions (we exist, This is fact away from feelings, Etc)? Reason is also a tool but if required feelings ceases to be reason. Reason definition: a cause, Explanation, Or justification for an action or event. This is a recording of sorts or understanding of events. If someone said I feel bad about someone dying because of car crash. Feel bad is subjective. Car crash is the reason which is objective assuming we exist. I think even if another species was dominant they would also find reason. This most likely would not be labelled the same way but would have attributes similar to ours. My argument here would be reason would happen in any species evolved enough. I cannot prove it but I think it is a given if the species has the capacity to do so. May we still learn something new.
Objectivism

The main axiom objectivism relies onAxioms are statements which in order to disprove would create a paradox. For example, The statement "I know my perceptions to be correct", Is an axiom since in order to disprove it, One must use their perception, Which creates a paradox of: how did you know the perceptions that perceived your perceptions to be wrong, Werent' also wrong? At any rate, I can only assume my opponent, Since they didn't use round 2 for debate like I had hoped, Was going to argue something like this. Really, Objectivism is absolutely reliant on the assumption that one's own perceptions are accurate, For our perceptions are the only thing that can be used to prove to ourselves anything exists. We have to use our sight, Feeling, Hearing, Etc. Now, I do not find satisfying the following logic satisfying: "I know my perceptions to be correct" can't be proven false, Then it must then be true. However, To argue something is true because it can't be proven false at this time, Is the exact definition of an argument from ignorance, Which is a logical fallacy. This means objectivist almost always rely on a logical fallacy. It's true that a logical fallacy doesn't prove the opponent's position false, But it would show that this line of reasoning is in error. The logical conclusion to come off of for "I know my perceptions to be correct" is that we do NOT have a position regarding that statement. No position and one's perspective must be usedSo what does this mean if we should not have a position regarding whether our perceptions are correct? Well, It means objectivism cannot be proven true. Everything in this universe as we perceive it, Is dependent on if we perceive it correctly. One can argue something exists regardless of if we perceive it. While this logic is corect, It doesn't actually prove that item exists objectively though. To prove to someone objectively that something is existent, That means you must use their perception: whether it is by looking at scientific data which proves something is true, Or performing the experiment yourself, One's perception has to be used. Since one's perspective has to be used in determining whether it exists for themselves, Objectivism can't exist. If it's reliant on one's own perspective, That means it's reliant on their own mind, Feelings, Etc, Which is the very definition of subjective. ConclusionSince objectivism states that certain things exist outside of the mind, Other than oneself, But it's not actually possible to prove it to someone without using their own mind to do so, Objectivism itself is paradoxical, And cannot be true.
Objectivism

Definition: Objectivism - the philosophical position that certain things in this existence can be objectively known, Other than the existence of oneself. Objective - Proven with evidence not reliant on one's own perspective. , Evidence that exists outside of the mind. Rules: 1) Opponent must agree to the above definitions and they will be arguing in favor of objectivism 2) Opponent must forfeit the last round of debate so that we have an equal amount of rounds used by each of us for the debate since I'm not using the first round. Say something like "As agreed upon, I will not be using this round for debate". 3) Google docs or something like it is permitted to your argument on, And post the link to your argument. Try to keep as close to 10, 000 characters as possible though so that I, Nor voters will have an extremely long amount of argument to read through. If you go over a few characters, That's fine with me, But don't be too excessive with it. 4) Keep it civil, No ad hominem attacks.
Adolph Hitler Doesn't Rule

Neither speaking skills or conquering multiple countries are sufficient reasons that Hitler rules. As for speaking skills, Hitler was charismatic and good at swaying people, but I wouldn't say his skills were "off the charts". He came in at a chaotic time for Germany and his political talents on top of that allowed him to gain control easily. It's doubtful that Hitler would have been able to come to power at another time in history. As for conquering multiple countries, you could say that he ruled, literally, at one point, but his reign was never peaceful and short lived; he doesn't rule now. That aside, what rules about conquering other countries? It's a purely aggressive move that ends up just causing suffering on both ends. The conquering country may get some more land or resources, but they sacrificed their soldiers and the other country of course gets it even worse. So how does marching into someone else's home and killing them rule? On that note, the few things that Hitler was good at or may have done right (boosted German economy) are outweighed grossly by the atrocities he committed. Creating jobs is not worth lives of millions of people. In order to say whether Hitler rules or not we have to look at him as a whole; he improved Germany, and had personal political and military skills, but there's no way that those make up for the atrocities of the Holocaust and World War II. Hitler had speaking skills and other talents as you said, but he used them to do terrible things. Hitler's ultimate mark on the world was a terrible one, and he does not rule.
Evolution exists!

I have stated that mutation cannot cause an improving form of life, and my opponent has countered this by saying, "Mutation causes evolution." That is not defending that mutation is a viable form of life-creation. My opponent says, "We all came from bacteria", as though it is fact. Even some evolutionists themselves do not believe this. [1] My opponent goes on to say that this supposed bacteria came from a comet. Where did the comet come from? Where did the bacteria come from? What made them? What made the energy necessary to drive the Comet? Not only does this piece of evidence not provide a true beginning to life and to the universe, but it also raises even more questions. My opponents reference to butterflies near factories is a wonderful example of micro evolution, or adaptation, which is not what this debate is about. This debate is about proving/disproving evolution as a beginning to live and the universe. My opponent clearly did not read my contention regarding entropy, because the law of entropy CLEARLY states that when changed or subject to chance (such as mutation), nature will move from higher levels of organization into more chaos. This makes evolution from a slightly organized being into a highly sophisticated being IMPOSSIBLE. My opponent attempts to illustrate what mutation is, when that is not necessary nor effective to this debate. "Survival of the fittest", or natural selection, is absolutely true, and has been observed. However, this selection cannot and has not created new beings, only improved those of the same species. Examples of this is camouflage in animals. [2] Opponent has failed to answer to any of my contentions, and has failed to provide sufficient evidence for macro evolution. P.S. Turtlebro, wikipedia is not a credible source. Sources: [1] http://www.integralworld.net... [2] http://education.nationalgeographic.com...
Evolution exists!

First source from DNA. http://genome.cshlp.org... We all came from bacteria. This bacteria was thought to have come from a comet that hit earth. This bacteria stayed on earth for many years taking billions of years to evolve into another form. Evolution happens when DNA copies strangely. It makes a mistake. These mistakes sometimes can be good other times be bad. Proof of this is in the tree problem of 1800. Butterflies were white in Britan they used this trait to blend in to the trees to hide from birds that would eat them. Then industrialization came along. The smoke from factories turned all the trees black. Now the white butterflies were being eaten because they couldn't blend in. However a mutation came along in the butterflies which turned one of them black at birth. Now this black butterfly could blend in with the trees. The birds could not see this bug easily and the bug mated and had more black butterflies. This contunied for a while. The proof of this is in the color changing. The butterflies that mutated to the environment survives. That is how evolution works. These mutations help animals adapt and prosper. Survival of the fittest. Now explain to me this. If there was really no evolution then how did these butterflies become black? As for your micro evolution argument, single felled organisms don't just POP into humans. It took a very long time to become that. As I said above, small mutations like no hair all over or better lungs take thousands if not millions of year to happen. Some people have 6 fingers on 1 hand. If that person has children, if that gean is dominant then that child will have 6 fingers on each hand. Little things happen to each person sometimes causing new species to happen. However these are gradual. These species can be smarter or more imaginative causing new species to occur. Sources. http://butterflywebsite.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Evolution exists!

Evolution exists. Now make clear I am not debating if God exists or not, but I am debating evolution itself. If evolution truly does not exist, then explain why there have been skulls found of creatures very simalar to us. These skulls become closer and closer to a human skull. On the topic of human qualities, explain why we have a very simlar genetic code to apes. We have a 96% DNA match with chimps, a 90% DNA match with cats, a 80% match with cows, and a 75% match with mice. Notice the pattern? Our match slowly goes down. If we were all made by God then wouldn't our DNA match 0% with all animals?
Should bullying stop at this moment? Or do you think it should continue and ruin our childrens lives

If one were to think rationally (which has got me badly bullied in the past because most people don't) we would realise that if we want to remain as the dominant specieson Earth we need to pass on the genes of dominators, this is only possible if we bully the non-dominant.I hav ebeen bullied too, thought of suicide too actually planned many ways to do it too.THen I realised I'm too damn tough a person for that sh*t and am far better off thanks to having to cope with bullying.Bullying allows the strong to realise their strength and the weak to be eliminated from the gene pool.For the sake of this debate, natural selection is the grounds of my opinion.
Should bullying stop at this moment? Or do you think it should continue and ruin our childrens lives

Firstly the cocept that "in the world nobody is weak" Is a complete abolishment of darwinism without any gorunding at all. Would you like to go and fight Bruce Lee at his prime? Thought not. You are weak, as am I compared to him. Additionally, emotional weakness is clear since many do commit suicide."most people aren't so tough and people are depressed all the time." This is exactly the issue. We need to get MOST humans to be tough and the only way to do this is by natural selection by means of bullying!"did you know that this one person was bullied all there life and was so deppresed the he went on a rampage ang became a serial killer. true story look it up." Yes, this is because he is insane and thanks to prison has now hopefully been destroyed from much chance of passing on his genes since his infamy will make finding a girl hard and his input in to the gene pool shall hopefully be minimal.I have been bullied. Badly. Total isolation, thoughts of suicide, crying myself to sleep yeah I've been through that sh*t and I am all the more hardheaded because of it. I don't let ANYONE mess with me anymore. Sure I let them play fight and intimidate but I have a toughness far superior to physical dominance; I have mental arrogance and believe it or not arrogance gets you far in life is you learn to use it correctly. This is why bullying is essential to build character and make men, men and wimps, wimps. To make only the prettiest women the chance to survive OR the ones strong enough to have th emental strenght to survive whilst ugly.See bullying alows two benefits which I alreayd told you:Only the toughest surviveAs well as them the less tough people who happen to be gifted with beauty survive too.
Should bullying stop at this moment? Or do you think it should continue and ruin our childrens lives

most people aren't so tough and people are depressed all the time. did you know that this one person was bullied all there life and was so deppresed the he went on a rampage ang became a serial killer. true story look it up. but in the world nobody is weak we just act like it. and i have a question have you ever bullied someone after you had that little heart to heart with yourself?
Jon Stewart vs. Stephen Colbert

Hell to the yeah! Alright Ill pick Jon Stewart, but I would like to clarify a few things about how to decide who is "better" There are any number of ways we can judge how one is "better" then the other, and countless more ways we can define what "better" even means, so I will simply list a few things that I think justifies Stewart being better then Colbert, but I invite the Pro to feel free to bring in his own justifications for how Colbert is "better" then Jon Stewart. Since this is a four round debate though Ill simply use this round to accept the debate. I choose Jon Stewart and now invite the Pro to make his case for why he thinks that Colbert is better then Stewart, Ill respond in round 2 and expand on the criteria of why Stewart is better, and then we'll just go from there.