BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams

Pro's Case: ==High School sports== "Studies have consistently shown that at the high school level, sports directly tie to better grades and better participation in the classroom [1]. We also find, through a study of over 1,000 high schools, that participating in sports lowers crime rates and suspension rates [2]." While sports are beneficial to high school students, high school sports are also a negative to high school students, their high schools, and their families. Not only are the costs of high school sports are rising [1] but there are also many cases of sports related injuries. [2] These sports related injuries, especially those that lead to brain damage, lead to lower levels of academic success. Here is a moral argument against high school sports: Whatever causes harm should not be funded High school sports cause harm and are funded Therefore high school sports should not be funded. As an alternative, instead of high school funding sports teams, students should join sports clubs so high school do not have to spend money on sports, but instead pay money for academic programs or healthier school meals. ==College sports== In order to support her argument, pro stated that college sports generated much income. While this is true, the statistics for these revenues are from the top 40 colleges, and are not representive of colleges as a whole. In adition, very few of those profits go to academics while the rest go to athletics. "Back to Alabama football. Of the $110 million of football revenue, less than $6.5 million went to the university to pay for scholarships, faculty support, and the Acts of Kindness fund. In other words, 5.9% of the football program"s revenue goes toward "academic programming." [3] "Every man is guilty for all the good he did not do" -Voltaire. In order to support her position, pro stated that college sports are beneficial to student's grades. While this is true, students can spend the time and energy doing sports into volunteering, and colleges can put that money that goes into sports programs into volunteering organizations. Volunteering also has a plethora of health benefits. [4] In order to get there excersise, a student can get it from volunteering, or students can set up games indepdently from school funding, and the school can use that money for academics rather than athletics. Sources: [1] http://www.deseretnews.com... [2] http://www.stanfordchildrens.org... [3] http://www.acenet.edu... [4] http://www.nationalservice.gov...
High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams

That being said, let's dive on into this. ===Con's Case=====High School sports==Studies have consistently shown that at the high school level, sports directly tie to better grades and better participation in the classroom [1]. We also find, through a study of over 1,000 high schools, that participating in sports lowers crime rates and suspension rates [2]. ==College sports==While it is easy to point out how Football and Basketball in college have reached a level to where they are doing more educational harm than good, this debate is about all sports, not just those. Extracurricular sports on the whole (meaning overpowering the drag of football and basketball) are benefitial to students' grades [3]. If college wants to get the best education possible, it cannot only be about education, as weird as that sounds. Young adults need a balanced life so that they can best absorb the information in the classroom. We also come across another important aspect, specifically when looking at Football and Basketball in college. Profits. Now, I will not get into how little of the profits go to what I would think they should go to. However, in 2008 [4], the top 40 colleges spent over $360 million for tuition. That paid for over 27,000 students to get a higher education. These top 40 schools also made a profit of almost $200 million that year ($198,148,104 to be exact) which went to the school in the form of better pay for teachers, better facilities for the campus, and lower tuitions for non-athelete students. So these sports are helping to make the education better and more obtainable for everyone else. I will leave this at this for now and allow my opponent to present their case. Thank you,[1] . http://sports.yahoo.com...;[2] . http://ns.umich.edu...;[3] . http://dc.cod.edu...;[4] . http://espn.go.com...;
High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams

Zoinks has stated "I think there never should have been sports teams directly associate with either high schools or colleges. Those places are about academics"[1]. In this debate, I am challenging the premise of that claim. The resolution for the debate is "High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams." I am taking the Con side, meaning I believe that they should have them, or at least have the option of them (it will come up in the arguments). Since this is a moral debate on "should," the BOP is shared by both sides to support their position. Also, because the debate focuses on morals of a "should" statement, there is no set moral code that is beyond question. My opponent may present their own moral beliefs and I may present my own. The one that is more compelling to the voters shall likely win out. The opening round is for acceptance and quick definitions. High School - "a school attended after elementary school or junior high school and usually consisting of grades 9 or 10 through 12." [2] College - "an institution of higher learning, especially one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training." [3] Sports - "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature." [4] For the purpose of this debate, we are only looking at sports which are sponsored and organized by the school. Since Zoinks has rejected to defend his own words on the battlefield of debate, I will open this up to any that hold the same view. I do hope that no one takes it (as that will make me feel better about the world), but we shall see. Thank you, [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The United States should use aid to influence countries with oppressive gender policies to reform

Thanks for the good debate. Hope your project goes well too. - To summarize 1.) Gender relations is a cultural problem that needs to be solved through a new era enlightenment and discarding of tradition religious beliefs. 2.) Money from first-world countries rarely impacts change in gender relations and often ends up in the hands of dictators. 3.) Constant sending of supplies to these nations creates a dependence on "infinite care," and is a disincentive for dictators to try and alleviate poverty/disease. 4.) Many globalists adamantly support large foreign aid spending as a form of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations. Often cultural Marxists will try and label opponents as racist if these massive charities are not met. They really do not care about the poor people, but rather the ideology of redistribution and glorification of globalism. These are people who often support authoritarianism and try to disguise themselves as liberals. Do not buy into this, they are hidden globalists and cultural Marxists. Progressive liberalism is generally libertarian in ideals and opposes globalism and interventionism. 5.) The only way these nations can succeed is the destruction of their religious and authoritarian regimes, and the implementation of industry and free markets/free speech. Secular Pro-Democracy freedom fighters are the answer to this problem as reform will be inevitable under such a modernized system. Our goal as first-world nations should be promoting these freedom fighters and denouncing dictators and oppressive governments. Money should come via private pro-democracy organizations that bolster the resistance movements. Thank you for the debate, it was interesting. I hope that the world can change for the better, without turning to globalist policies and interventionism. Long live liberty!
The United States should use aid to influence countries with oppressive gender policies to reform

By the way, this is for a debate project in my college English class, so I don't actually have to be legitimately for or against it. But I have to be for it just for the debate. I'm pretty much against it, though. I feel as if we should stop interfering with other countries and focus on our own. How does women oppression in other countries affect us? It's not our country. Yes, it's horrible what they do to women, but that's their choice. We should have nothing to do with that. I don't understand why we are giving money to other countries when we really need it here. There are women getting treated just as badly here as there are in other countries. Why don't we help our own people? On a side note, I don't think that it's government aid that creates the most change for reform. The people do. The people realize that they have oppressive governments already. They see how other countries work. The U.S. government should give aid directly to the people. We shouldn't focus on governments. Who cares if you run your country differently? Focuson the people that need help. I very much appreciate you taking the time to debate with me. 1. It justifies the need for us to pick and choose who we send resources to because as a brother country, we are supposed to help and if the women in our "family" are getting mistreated, then we should help to stop that. And Islamic countries only have high gender abuse problems because it tells the men to beat their wives. - Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT THEM; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." - Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife. Why do this? This isn't going to solve anything. It's just going to scare them into obeying men. We aren't giving them the money to stop poverty. We're basically just saying, "Hey, if we give you money, then you have to treat your women better." Giving them supplies is just another way of bribing them. 2. "Instead of throwing money at poverty", we could give more funding to these other organizations. Other than that, I completely agree with you on this point. I'm sorry, I'm not really a debater. I'm merely just a 16 year old student. 3. We wouldn't make a pledge, but we would use it as encouragement to industrialize. As a "big brother," it is our duty to help and give money to our "family." I like your solutions. I see this is the last round. So, again, I thank you for taking the time to do this with me. It is greatly appreciated. ~ Fairwinds.
The United States should use aid to influence countries with oppressive gender policies to reform

Thank you for taking the time to debate this topic with me. You make some very valid points. 1. It's not necessarily just the poor countries, it just seems like it's a lot worse in poor countries. A country with poor treatment of women is not defined by its category of being rich or poor. It is defined when women, no older than 16 years of age, are married off as child brides. Domestic violence is so common that 87% of women in Afghanistan ADMIT to experiencing it. There could be so many more. Daughters that are not married off are sold into human trafficking in Nepal. Rape is so brutal and systematic that UN investigators have called them unprecedented. Few women escape the torture of genital mutilation. Women are mistreated everywhere, even in the United States still. However, much ground has been taken in the battle against this. Women in the US have not had to face the same poverty and cultural oppression as those in Africa or the Middle East. 2. I agree with you on this one. I totally think that we should worry about our country first, but these countries are our "friends" and if we stop helping them, then we won't have any "friends." Yeah, it sucks that we have to "buy" our "friends", but that's just the way it works. Yes, the homeless and starving in our country is a troubling matter; however, there are programs already to deal with these issues. Yes, they may phase out and close, but new programs will be made. This is the jurisdiction of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness to provide for these homeless and starving citizens. They are allotted a budget yearly to deal with such matters and that does not include the 0.7% of the US budget made for foreign aid. This is a large sum of money, which does not necessarily need to be met, for even 0.1% is a large amount of our almost SIXTEEN TRILLION dollar Gross National Income. 3. Aid is not only giving money to people in other nations. Yes, that would be done in an attempt to help governments; however, products can be given as well. Bed nets have been given to places that have a high rate of Malaria, medicine and resources to help with sickness, HIV, and childbirth. It has always been a goal of the United States to influence governments in other nations to adopt our democratic system, something that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the primary goal must simply be to assist. The condition of countries in Africa, the Middle East, and in some Asian nations is simply deplorable and the United States, regardless of our minor homeless rate or lower class, has a responsibility as a major world power to bring these countries out of poverty. We must be a helping hand to guide these nations out of poverty and oppression and into prosperity and equality. Kennedy created the Peace Corps during the Cold War with the Soviet Union just to keep the countries a democracy. If the country became the Communist, the Peace Corps stopped helping them. Thank you, again, for taking the time to debate this with me. I, as well, look forward to debating the topic.
The United States should use aid to influence countries with oppressive gender policies to reform

I will break my argument into three central points regarding foreign aid to countries with "oppressive gender stances. " 1. ) I will ask the question of what defines a country with poor "treatment of women. " Is it merely that they are poor? Is it that they are an ethnicity who should be fostered? There is poor treatment of women in many countries, not just poor ones. 2. ) I will bring up the question of equality in the name of inequality. Shouldn't a governments primary role be to foster the development of its own people? There are many people starving in first-world countries that need that money and assistance just as bad. How can you deny your own citizens money and expect them to be happy that you are sending it overseas. Is this not their tax money? "0.7% of their Gross National Income" is huge when compared to first-world economies and I do not blame these countries for not following through. I am not saying charity work is a bad thing, merely that this money could benefit the poor in first-world countries. This would in turn set up a better global stage for charity down the road. 3. ) Thirdly, I will bring up the question of effectiveness and intention. "We take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries. " I will support that quote and infer what the real reason behind first-world nations giving foreign aid to poor countries is. You say it is in the name of gender discrimination but I see something far more sinister on the horizon. Thank you for this opportunity again, and I look forward to debating the topic.
The United States should use aid to influence countries with oppressive gender policies to reform

In poor countries, the treatment of women is horrible. Rape, honor killings, and powerlessness are widespread and women in nations such as Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Nepal do not know of the rights and privileges that women in richer nations know. In 1970, richer nations pledged to contribute 0.7% of their Gross National Income to foreign aid to such countries. However, this goal is rarely met. Better policies and improved methods are needed to encourage governments that oppress women to reform. Women make up half of the world's population, yet represent 70% of the world's poor. The United States is one of the major powers of the world, and they should play a role in helping underprivileged countries. Even though women in other countries have gained rights without external help, conditions were never as bad as they are in modern 3rd world countries.
Dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan was unnecessary to end WWII

However, I would like to point out that many of my opponent’s sources are not internet links and thus should not be taken into consideration. The Japanese were prepared to surrender Firstly, my opponent has provided no source for his claim that soldiers had total devotion to the emperor. This is clearly false, as I have shown how there was talk of assassinating the emperor among the army and navy. Clearly, this is incorrect. Secondly, though they may have agreed to unconditional surrender, as I have shown, many of the Japanese soldiers did not believe that was the right decision and they continued to fight. The destruction of the atomic bomb was the key factor in persuading much of the Japanese army to surrender. The top American military decision argument Regardless, that doesn’t mean that all their decisions are correct. That is proved by their eventual surrender without one. Not true, there was not a military invasion, there was the equivalent of one. Two cities were almost instantly levelled, a major military offensive was what ended the war. They were prepared to surrender given we allowed the emperor to maintain power. As I have shown, the army WOULD NOT surrender that easily. You’re argument that the Japanese people would sooner perish than surrender is simply not true. As I have clearly shown, Japanese people committed suicide rather than being captured. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of people perished almost instantly before they surrendered. Russia invading Japan would mean an end to the war. However, it would’ve dragged out the war to an amazing degree, resulted in millions more deaths, and would’ve resulted in Communism spreading. For the United States, the atom bomb was the fastest way to end the war and was necessary in order to prevent the spread of communism. My contentions still stand: Japanese SOLDIERS would not have surrendered, as many didn’t even after the end of the war, and stopping the spread of the Russians made the dropping of the bomb necessary. MY OPPONENT’S POINTS WERE: 1. The Japanese were prepared to surrender – I have shown that the soldiers would’ve continued fighting, refuting this point 2. Russia was the reason for Japan’s surrender – my opponent has completely dropped this point 3. Generals disagreed with the bombing – I have shown general’s decisions are not always correct 4.
Dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan was unnecessary to end WWII

I"ll apologize the sources didn"t copy correctly from a previous debate, they are here. http://www.spectacle.org... http://www.colorado.edu... As for the other sources, let me know which quotes you think are fallacious and I"ll try to find you an internet source. The Japanese were prepared to surrender. This is the most important part. The Japanese soldier had complete devotion to the emperor, whom they considered a god. If the Japanese would truly never surrender, then that would include facing the destruction by atomic bomb. However they did eventually agree to unconditional surrender which means they would have never truly fought to the death before surrendering. This is why the terms of a conditional surrender were so vitally important. The most major of terms being the emperor maintaining his throne. A term eventually met by the allies anyway. 7 Generals disagreed with the use of the bomb. The top American military brass" position on the bomb is important as they were in the best positions to make the best military decisions and they did not want to drop the bomb. Invasion of the mainland was unnecessary. Simply not true that they wouldn"t have surrendered to anything short of a full military invasion. That is proved by their eventual surrender without one. Also, as has been established earlier, they were prepared to surrender given we allowed the emperor to maintain power. C1: JAPAN WOULD NOT HAVE SURRENDERED OTHERWISE Japan was entirely ready to surrender given certain terms, most important of them being that they be allowed to keep their emperor. You"re argument that the Japanese people would sooner perish than surrender is simply not true. As is proven by the fact that they did surrender without perishing. C2: RUSSIA WAS INVADING I"d point out that Russia invading Japan would mean an end to the war, without the use of the atomic bomb or lost American lives in an invasion. The points about spreading communism or furthering bloodshed are speculative and irrelevant to the resolution. Sources 1 http://www.spectacle.org... 2 Microfilm 1108, RG 77, Harrison-Bundy Files, file 100, Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, Thursday, 31 May 1945, National Archives 3 Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71 4 Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 5 http://www.colorado.edu... 6 William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. 7 The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11.] http://www.ihr.org...