BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial Integration in the west has been a complete failure thus far.

Response to C1: We can agree on one thing...we've made progress. However progress and success are two different things. If I remember correctly I stated that "Racial Integration in the west has been a complete failure thus far." Drop out rates, incarceration rates, and unemployment rates are all disproportionately high for minorities. With that being said, it's evident that the west has a system that is either intentionally or unintentionally designed to keep whites a privileged group. Every single day that this is the case we are violating the basic human right to be treated as equal...AKA we have failed thus far. Response to C2: Well here we clearly disagree. Progress is important, but it isn't the key to success. The Patriots of 2012 might have agreed with you until they lost to the giants, and Russia might have thought the same thing until the U.S.A beat them to the moon. So I think history has proven that "progress" isn't the key. We must asses the problem...the real problem. you speak of kids from your high school not "seeing in color," and that may be true, neither you or I can read minds so I won't speak on that. But it's because of this focus on the smaller picture why "institutionalized racism" can exist. Because lets face it, somebody calling me a n****r on the street does very little to affect my income level. The jump from micro to macro doesn't always translate...this is why the theory of evolution (which I hold dear) is a theory. and this is why the "progress" you speak of is a sham. We're winning...but we're fighting the wrong enemy. Response to C3 (Sub-point A): I care little for what the powers that be in the 50s, 60s, and 70s said. Maybe they called it equal, maybe that didn't. What they did doesn't matter to me, because I'm speaking on the here and now. Separation without exploitation a mistreatment has been proven to work. Africentric schools are an example, you may not like them, but they're helping young black youths far more than the public school system ever has. So your statement that "so long as they are separate it can not be equal" seems to be false. Response to C3 (Sub-point B): You're right, it will bring misfortune to some, many in fact...but not most. Like any major change some people will be negatively affect. The Civil Rights Movement left some black people dead, was that a reason to stop? Hundreds and thousands of blacks were beaten to death, lynched, burned alive, and flayed, but the movement continued. Why? Because it had to. And your analogy about dieting is perfect, so allow me to borrow it. When you achieve success on a diet continue by all means. But when you plateau, something has to change.
Racial Integration in the west has been a complete failure thus far.

As no rules or structure were set for the debate and it seems as though my opponent has revealed his/her main argument and his/her plan to solve I will negate these this round with my own arguments. (I am assuming that by west we are referring to the USA. ) Contention 1: Progress is Apparent (Further known as C1) Contention 2: Progress is key to attaining 'True Equality' (Further known as C2) Contention 3: Inadequacy in stepping backwards (Further known as C3) C1: 200 years ago the west owned slaves, we had the 3/5 compromise making African Americans 3/5 people. We had the civil war, releasing African Americans from slavery. We had the Civil rights movement to give ANYONE, despite color, the right to vote provided that they are over the age of 18. November of 2008 we voted in our first African American President. So in fact we are making progress. C2: In order to be a complete failure in Integrating Blacks, Whites, Asians and whoever else, We would have to not be making progress. Progress towards lesser discrimination is the goal in today's society. As we achieve this the integration problem is solved in the process. At my own school that I graduated from there were many Black students, white students, Asian Students, Mexican students, and yet almost no one saw in color. By that I mean that no one cared if you were colored or not. this is not complete and utter failure, this is progress. C3: Sub-point A) The plan that you put forward is just plain inadequate. It reminds me of something we had before in fact. What we fought to get rid of. Separate but Equal, was the term that was used. Colored people went to one school, and non-colored went to another. Yet it wasn't equal, one of the prevailing arguments to this day about it is the fact that so long as they are separate it can not be equal. Not only the funding wasn't equal, but the idea itself isn't equal. Segregation further defines the divide between colored and not, it creates a rift between the 2. It only supports the idea that one is not equal. Sub-point B) What would happen to all of the friends anyways? What would happen to people in the workplace, if 'de-integration' is the key, then wouldn't that spread up to the workforce as well? If so what about my parents, one is black and one is white? What about my brother who currently goes to school with our black step brother? This wouldn't just be my family torn apart by this very idea, it would be hundreds of thousands, and that itself is an indication that integration is working. Have we come to a point where Racism doesn't exist? No. Are we progressing? Yes. We can't rip out the foundation of our progress. It would be like actually telling women to go back to the kitchen because we have yet to attain equal pay for them in the work place. Or quitting a diet because you have not had the results you want yet. Giving up and reverting to how things were before isn't a solution, it's a surrender.
Racial Integration in the west has been a complete failure thus far.

After years of strife and fighting for "equality," the west has made great strides, however we are still FAR from true equality. Time and time again institutionalized racism rears it's ugly head, and it's become apparant that equality is a sham. I believe that the only way to achieve true equality is to reinstitute racial segregation...but with a twist. That all school regardless of the group must be funded equally and adequately, and that the level of education stay the same across the board.
Fall Out Boy or One Repubic? (FOB=Pro) (One Republic=Con)

"I have interviewed many students at my school asking the names of the band members in both bands". That information does not matter. Usually, being in a lesser-known band is better than being in a massively known band, because it makes your fandom stronger and gives you more support from labels and general supporters looking for rising, promising artists."The lead singer of Fall Out Boy juggles more than being in a band as well". So does OneRepublic's singer (Ryan Tedder). He can write, cook, play over six instruments, and run a label, all while maintaining his incredible vocal talent. Bassist Brent Kutzle is also a producer- he has worked with high name artists including Beyonce (the girl herself), Ellie Goulding, Cobra Starship, and more. Guitarist Zach Filkins has also been a model."The fact that you brought up the saying 'Quality over Quantity" is ridiculous, because quantity is made up of facts while quality is based on opinions." Quality is not always a matter of opinion; structure of lyricism and layout of instrumentals are just two solid facts that determine literal quality in music."He owns a record label that has signed many famous bands". DCD2 only has five bands and three solo artists, none of which are famous (with the exception of FOB, but Wentz only signed them because he's in the group himself). They are all just up-and-coming artists. OneRepublic's frontman Ryan Tedder also owns a record label called Patriot Records. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Pro repeatedly mentions the fact that FOB members support charities. What Pro doesn't know is OneRepublic is one of the most charity-involved bands out there. They have supported many charities, including:-Aid Still Required-Feeding America-Muscular Dystrophy Association-Save The Music FoundationThey used money earned from their single "I Lived" to help the fight against Cystic fibrosis, and they donate to the Coca-Cola (RED) campaign against AIDS._______________________________________________SOURCES:http://suprtickets.com...http://www.patriotrecords.com...https://www.looktothestars.org...http://dcd2records.com...
Fall Out Boy or One Repubic? (FOB=Pro) (One Republic=Con)

I have interviewed many students at my school asking the names of the band members in both bands. Around 80% of the students could name at least 2 members of Fall Out Boy. While 30% of the students named only the lead singer of One Republic. The lead singer of Fall Out Boy juggles more than being in a band as well. "Patrick Martin Stumph, known professionally as Patrick Vaughn Stump, is an American singer, songwriter, musician, record producer, actor and music critic" -Google Ryan Tedder only does 1 other thing. "Ryan Benjamin Tedder is an American singer-songwriter and producer" -Google The fact that you brought up the saying "Quality over Quantity" is ridiculous, because quantity is made up of facts while quality is based on opinions. Pete Wentz, the bassist for FOB also does many other things. He owns a record label that has signed many famous bands such as Panic! At the disco and Gym Class Heroes. Wentz has also done many projects that son't involve music such as writing, acting, and he founded a clothing company. He has also done many things for different charities such as UNICEF's Tap Project and he has worked with Invisible Children Inc. Even People magazine states that "no bassist has upstaged a frontman as well as Pete Wentz of Fall Out Boy." This proves that the lead singer does not do all the work as the bassist does many things not only for the band, but for his community. Ryan Tedder might have done other musical things but Pete Wentz and Patrick Stump (Patrick Stump has done many works for charities as well) have done other musical things AND things that benefit others who aren't as fortunate.
Fall Out Boy or One Repubic? (FOB=Pro) (One Republic=Con)

Pro seems to be misled on some of his arguments. I'll quote things Pro has stated and refute them."Therefore, Fall Out Boy (FOB, if you will) has been in the music business much longer than One Republic." Not true. OneRepublic has in fact been involved musically for much longer. Yes, FOB did start in 2001, but they were on hiatus from 2009-2013. That makes them only active for ten years. One Republic, however, has been around since 2002 with no kind of hiatus or break-up ever. That makes their current age as a band thirteen. Thirteen is a higher number than ten, obviously. Even more to back up my point, frontman Ryan Tedder and guitarist Zach Filkins began music in 1996, in a musical duo called This Beautiful Mess. No member of FOB started music until the early 2000's."That's more than DOUBLE what One Republic has." Amount of albums does NOT determine quality. It's the skill of lyricism and instrumentation within tracks that determine quality. Ever heard the saying, "Quality over Quantity"?_____________________________________________________________________________Pro also mentions how Patrick Stump (Fall Out Boy's lead vocalist) has worked solo. Pro should recognize that Ryan Tedder, too, has worked solo. He's worked as a co-writer for many famous artists, including: Kelly Clarkson, Maroon 5, Colbie Calliat, One Direction, etc. He's also been featured in songs by artists like Gym Class Heroes and Far East Movement. Tedder also released a solo song entitled "I've Gotta Be Me".Another Fun Fact: Ryan Tedder wrote the two most played songs in radio history. That title is a record broken only by himself.______________________________________________SOURCES:http://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.google.com...http://www.last.fm... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fall Out Boy or One Repubic? (FOB=Pro) (One Republic=Con)

Fall Out Boy is way better than One Republic. One Republic only has 3 albums while Fall Out Boy (and Patrick Stump, the lead singer of Fall Out Boy who was an artist on his own at a certain point in time) has at least 6 albums. That's more than DOUBLE what One Republic has. Fall Out Boy was formed in 2001 while One Republic was formed in 2002. Therefore, Fall Out Boy (FOB, if you will) has been in the music business much longer than One Republic. FOB songs send a message, while One Republic songs are kind of random.
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

Welcome to my opponant. I will address each of your claims. You said: "No one has to have sex until they want to conceive." I say: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting. You said: "If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse." I say: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women. Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women. If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child? Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive. You have failed to address each of my claims according to the number I gave them. Would you care to do so now?
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

No need to wait, just jump right in. All I ask is that you address each of my points according to the number I gave it. 1. Contraception improves the health of women by allowing them to prevent pregnancy. 2. Childbirth is much more expensive than contraception. 3. No matter how you feel about abortion, people do have the right to choose what to do with their bodies as long as they do not hurt anyone. 4. Contraception saves money by allowing a person to avoid the cost of pregnancy, childbirth, recovery after childbirth, and so on. 5. Unwanted children are more likely to suffer and be abused, so why not prevent their conception. 6. Contraception is cost effective.
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

Regardless of a woman's right to her own body women have no medical need to have sexual intercourse and thus should not be forcing a health plan to fund their sexually active lifestyle (this entire argument by Pro is sexist since men need contraception too since they may be having sex with a girl who is not on the pill or want it for actual prevention of STDs which the pill does not offer).In Round 1 I stated that no one has to have sex but that some people need to be cured and can't afford it at time unless they are on a health plan. Health plans are about spending the money that all the insurance company's clients put in on the clients the need it the most. It is not fair to be spending valuable money on contraception and then realizing that not enough is left over for the people who actually need it (such as cancer patients undergoing chemo-therapy or donor recipients for a transplant operation).You did not rebut this at all and even when I expanded on it in R4 you state that the condoms should not be covered by insurance but the other methods (that prevent birth only) should. If you are going to not fund the STD-preventing method of contraception that is condoms but fund the less medically relevant sex-enabler that is just ridiculous.Okay, I am going to use big font here just to say the same thing that I have said all debate:If women do not want to get pregnant but cannot afford contraception there is this great money-saving tactic called not doing penile penetration during the experience of sexual pleasure. Furthermore if they do not want to risk STDs, there are options of masturbation with a variety of toys, both for men and women.There is absolutely no reason for the resolution to hold true.Thank you for reading.
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

Con: "there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment." I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: "Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate." Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: "Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant." I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: "Con: What does this have to do with anything?" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.Con: What does this have to do with anything?
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina. ProR: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it. ProR: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice. Con: That proves nothing... Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy. Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution? It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose. Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill? Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.
Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

ConR1: No one has to have sex until they want to conceive.Pro: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting.ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina.ConR1: If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse.Pro: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women.ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it.Pro: Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women.Con: That proves nothing... Pro: If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child?Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution?Pro: Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive.Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill?
High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams

==High School== Let us first address the moral arguement that my opponent created. The first tenant of it is "Whatever causes harm should not be funded. " We can counter this on two aspects. First, my opponent violates his own moral arguement by saying that students should join sports clubs. His own source on injuries [1] includes non-school sports, so he is in violation of his own morals. Second, we can dismiss this line of morals because it is contingent upon "harm" rather than "net harm. " This same moral code whould say it is immoral to fund child birth, because that causes harm to the mother's body. You also reach a simple contradiction, since it implies that activity is immoral because it can cause harm, while inactivity is also immoral because it can cause harm. Even though physical activity may lead to sprains and strains and other injuries, the benefits it has for improving children's lives [2] far outweigh the negative costs of some temporary or highly uncommon injuries. My opponent suggests that non-school sports would be sufficient, however provides no sources that suggest they would be able to reach the same success or the same paticipation rate. It should also be noted that my opponent dropped the arguement that sports leads to lower crime [3] and higher classroom attendence [4]. I would also like to mention for those that only saw the sources but did not read into them. The degrees to which grades and attendence are improved are redicious. An average of 21 more days attended per year (this is out of a 180 day school year) and a higher GPA of 0.65 (this is out of a 4.0 scale) [4]. And these were not studies done of a single school or tiny sample size, this was out of 35,000 students. ==College==My opponent seems to miss the point here in their argument. They claim that the money spent on College sports could go to other things, but as I showed, with many colleges, the sports make money, not cost money. This gives them the funds that can help in other areas. Of those 40 top schools, all made money through sports. And of the top 80, only 2 lost money [5]. Of those top 40 schools, They made a total of $3.16 billion, with $360 million going to Tuition for students, and $200 million going to profits and $84 million going to smaller schools (that they pay to come play them). This comes to about 20% that goes to more than just paying coaches and boosters and other special interests. This is money that goes back to help the school and the children. I pass this back to my opponent. Thank you,[1] . http://www.stanfordchildrens.org... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov... [3] . http://ns.umich.edu...;[4] . http://sports.yahoo.com...;[5] . http://espn.go.com...;