BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Permanent standing army

A permanent standing army was a new development in the late 17th century. It was this that was under the direct control of the King that gave absolutism substance. In Sweden in the Riksdag of 1682 the three commoner estates were united against the nobility who then gave way due to the crowns wishes. This allowed the establishment of a permanent standing army in which the king negotiated directly with the peasantry of a province, removing one of the main functions of the Riksdag and cutting out the participation of the nobility.[[A.F. Upton, Sweden, pp.115-116.]] Charles XI implemented the indelningsverk to provide for the permanent army, this benefited the propertied peasantry as they were exempt from military service if they between a pair of farms provided for a soldier who also doubled as a farm labourer. They were also exempt from taxation allowing greater profits.[[Robert I. Frost, ‘The Northern Wars 1558-1721’, (Harlow, 2000), p.221.]] The nobility did not however lose out too much as through the reduktion they could consolidate property and they gained regular payment in salaries.[[A.F. Upton, Sweden, p.118.]]
Absolutism.

While it is implied in the question that Absolute has to mean unlimited power/control over the state otherwise it obviously cant be called 'Absolute' however as we are refering to a specific set of monarchies that are called 'absolute' between about 1650 and 1800 of which Louis XIV is the main example that everyone uses although equally his sucessors could be used as the example as could many German or Russian Kings/Tsars/Princes etc. Why should practical limits not be considered limits? you mention that monarchs 'could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted, on a small scale'. Yes and No. There were often domestic constituencies that had some power to stop the 'absolute' monarch's actions. Most obviously advisers could steer his actions, bodies like the French parlement could oppose and indeed did oppose many actions. Are these not limiting in practice if not in theory? This you seem to accept is the case, which is essentially what this debate is about. A straw man or ideal type theory was created, so it is no wonder it gets holes poked in it!
it provides equal opportunities to all

Whilst the tables do show that girl schools our perform boys and co-ed schools, this may not be a factor which supports the idea of girls achieving at a higher rate in single sex schools. There are other factors which might shed light on why girls schools tend to top the league tables. It could be that teachers prefer to work in girls schools. Girls are perceived to be less dangerous and boisterous, even in this day and age. If more teachers apply to girls’ schools then these schools can take the best ones, leaving the less inspiring teachers to go to the local boy’s school or co-ed school. With this occurring, girls are getting far better chances in life as they are receiving better teaching. This is not fair. If all schools were co-ed, then everyone would have equal opportunities.
A broader curriculum would be offered

When girls and boys attend different schools, the school tend to stereotype themselves based on what they think their pupils want to study. For this reason, in girls schools classes like cookery, dance and humanity subjects would be offered. However, boys will be offered more practical subjects like woodwork and physical education. This could limit a student as to their strengths. A girl may have her talent in wood work stilted because her girl school did not offer it. Equally, boys could miss out on their analytical skills because they were not offered the humanity subjects. In co-ed schools, both of the genders have to be catered for ergo, girls could attend their wood work classes and boys could attend humanity classes. No stereotyping, no impeding of possible talents.
Single sex schools are bad for boys health

Men always say that they do not understand women, perhaps because they were sent to single sex schools. Research has proved that boys who went to single sex schools as opposed to mixed schools are more likely to get divorced and suffer from depression in their 40s [[Professor Diana Leonard, from London University's Institute of Education, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/why-singlesex-schools-are-bad-for-your-health-if-youre-a-boy-1831636.html%5D%5D This is proof that we should school our children in mixed schools in order to give them the best bill of emotional health.
Girls need to be cultured into independence

In this modern day and age women are still discriminated against in the world of work. They still have lower pay and are less likely to get the promotion compared to their male counter part. To combat this, women need to come together and be cultured into an independent and strong environment for them to aspire for more. Girls in single sex schools will have more determination to succeed. Teachers can be instructedto teach in a way that drives the young women forward into life, giving them a sense of what could be achieved if they tried. The competition in the school will be for the best grades, not for the best looking boyfriend.
A broader curriculum would be offered

This excludes consideration of social influences that would affect girls in Co-ed schools in their choice of subjects to take for qualifications. The school advisor, via stereotyping, would encourage girls to take dance, English and other languages. These are the subjects that girls are renowned for doing well in. The school advisor would want the best results for the school and so would type cast girls into these subjects. Also, the school needs to fill up all the available spaces for each subject. Therefore, they need to get the girls to accept the ‘girly’ subject spaces as the boys would be less likely to opt for them. Equally boys would be encouraged to go for the more ’masculine’ subjects like PE and maths. This is in addition to the pressure that the students would put on themselves. If a boy wanted to do dance, the social pressure of knowing that he would be the only boy in the class would make the boy not choose dance. A girl may want to study woodwork, but would not have the confidence to be the only girl in a room full of boys. In a single sex school, these pressures do not exist. If the subject is offered, any girl or boy who was interested would not feel ashamed in taking it knowing that everyone else in the class would be in the same position.
It provides a better induction into our world

From family life, to professional life, to daily routine, pour world contains both men and women. Regardless of league tables, education is about preparation for life. If girls naturally perform better in an environment without boys, they need to learn how to perform just as well with boys. The problem is that in life they will not be surrounded by girls all the time, they will have to cope with boys. Regardless of qualifications, girls will perform better professionally and emotionally if they learn young how to cope with boys and ultimately, men.
Girls’ learning is impeded by boys

If you look at the league tables, you can clearly see that single sex girl schools have far better results, at both GCSE and A’Level. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/a_level_gcse_results/]] This is a clear indication that girls out perform boys, and girls in single sex school achieve more than girls in mixed schools. With a girls ability to learn at a much quicker rate than boys, co-ed schools would only force girls to learn at a slower rate. This will mean that girls who attend such school will not achieve their full potential. This is not to be promoted but condemned. Girls and boys should learn separately in order for every child to learn at their own pace.
Relationships will form and will distract from education

Teaching teenagers in a classroom environment can be a hard task, even if they are of the same sex. Teenagers naturally are clumsy and easily distracted by less important matters. Then think of the distractions there would be with the opposite sex in the room. Boys eyes will not be on the white board and girls will be passing notes around about who they would like to kiss, date or marry. With all of this carry on, neither sex will learn anything in the classroom. Then students will form relationships with each other, and this will also distract the students. Should the relationship fail, how could both parties continue on with education as they normally would in the same class? The whole idea of co-ed education is troublesome and worrying.
The whole team should not be held accountable for something that they might not have been aware of.

Opp arguments aren't playing nice with one another. Rebutting Yes#4 they recognize the limitations of the current scope by saying that testing is “done randomly or in cases of suspicion”. AND in No#2 they admit there's impunity with “Even if the inaccuracy is relatively low, it means that those low percentages of athletes are getting away without their dope-cheating penalised”. Yet their evidence in the answer to Yes#2 says that these weak testing regimen took Summer Olympics positive results from 1.4% (1976), 0.8% (1984), to 0.42% (2008) and Winter Olympics from 5.1% (1976) to 0.08 (2006). This is highly incompatible with the assertion they made here “as seen in the past and in the present, cheating is inevitable”, since by their own admission, this measure, while limited and ineffective, helped reduce the percentage of athletes using PED since the 70's. Sadly it's still there (is not 0%), and stronger measures need to be taken. They also made a strong point out of incentives to cheat increasing due to the commercialization and popularity of the event. We contend that these increased temptations have to be matched with stronger disincentives than we have today so doping can be eradicated. Facing the ire of fans, colleagues and coaches is a strong blow for people wanting to be idols, and hurting the chances to win of their friends and teammates will give them emotional reasons to stay clean. They argue that it's unfair to strip people of "legally" acquired medals. First, in competitions like a relay race, if a member uses drugs, the entire team benefits from that performance so their medals are tainted. On the other hand, it is even less fair for a team with no cheaters to lose to a team of cheaters. It isn't like failing a whole class because someone cheated on their test, it's like failing a group essay if one of the members plagiarized part of the content, even if the other members weren't aware or chose to ignore it.
Heavy punishments such as striping an athlete of their medal should be person-specific.

Opp is making some overbroad claims by saying "such harsh punishment potentially ruining an athlete’s career", because stripping a medal isn't any more damaging for an athlete's career than not getting the medal in the first place (being 4th doesn't ruin careers), it does cause sadness and dissapointment, eagerness to try again and a lot of sympathy from the public. Opp complements this asserting that those teammates "get the same punishment as the athlete who has made the life changing decision", but that's not true. Marion Jones got her medals stripped AND a 2 years suspension[[http://lat.ms/pQSTH7]], her teammates only faced having their medals stripped (no suspension). Then they remain rather inflexible by saying "Putting their team’s victory at risk to create ‘social pressure’ is not going to decrease motivation for an athlete to use dope". Really? Not even a little bit? Not even in some cases? Sportspeople balance the odds of winning (thanks to dope) and its benefits vs the odds and consequences of being caught, and the health issues. Adding drawbacks that will make them infamous among their fans, colleagues and sport authorities is bound to be factored in; and hurting their friends and team members will be factored in too. Some athletes are willing to hurt themselves, less are willing to become infamous, and most will bark at the possibility of hurting others. Marion Jones' case, involved a relay race.So her teammates benefited from her performance and won medals. Her team-mate's winning appeal doesn't advance opps case: Their own evidence shows that the appeals court ruled that way because "rules in 2000 did not allow entire teams to be disqualified because of doping by one athlete"[[http://usat.ly/djqiUg]]. Those are the rules we want to change, because -as the court admitted- that kind of ruling is 'unfair to relay teams that competed "with no doped athletes"'. Opp hasn't engaged us on this unfairness the court spoke about, that involves more
1. Not being harsh on doping forces athletes to choose between life and Olympic Glory

It is true that athletes, most of the time, are under pressure to win, however, it seems extreme to suggest that professional athletes can only choose between death and doping. Decisions in life are made with the consequences of the alternatives in mind. The point is that while the pressures placed on athletes to perform might be strong, but athletes aren’t all deciding that the huge risks to health and reputation are worth the possibility of winning a competition – especially in a team sport, where enhancing only their own performance isn’t even going to guarantee a win. Additionally, there is no inherent reason why athletes need to be protected from the pressure to engage in doping any more than the pressure to train harshly. “N.F.L. players were consistently linked to brain damage commonly associated with boxers and football player… It is found that of the 595 retired N.F.L. players… 20.2 percent said they had been found to have depression [not to mention numerous cases of concussion]”.1 If it is a real ‘mandate for the Olympic Committee to minimize health risks’, (and not just a jump on the bandwagon) wouldn’t this be a better place to start? Proposition has also argued that there should also be a regulation to protect players from doping since there are different rules to protect players' different 'sections' of their bodies. Of course we need regulations. We support rules and punishments, but players—or boxers—bear their own punishments. The team shouldn't have to be punished unless it can be proven that they collaborated in doping their teammate. Stripping the entire team's medals is not going to protect people any better – it is just going to harm teamwork by making teammates distrust each other, and encourage people to play the “blame game”. 1.http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/football/head_injuries/index.html?offset=0&s=news
Categorical Team Punishment Jeopardises Team Network

We responded about Phelps as example previously but ok, IOC fails to detect some cases and that there are ways to get around tests. We support any measure to prevent failings. What makes team mates more able to know? The fact that they're in the circle of trust of trainers and other team members. Also, apart from not knowing they might just be better at faking the test or benefit from a false positive. But Opp keeps ignoring that we're not relying solely on social pressure, we also said in yes #3: our measure will make unnacceptable for teams the risk of going to the olympics with doped athletes. In the past the the US olympic Committee hid tests results in order to allow dopers to go and earn medals. They had a good chance to win and in the worse case scenario the cheater got busted, and the consequences for the team were the same as if he hadn't shown up AND someone else in the team could still win medals in that discipline. But, if we start stripping the entire team of medals, the incentives for the USOC will change: now the best thing for the delegation is making sure there aren't any dopers in any team, so they don't jeopardize their teammates chances, in order to do this Olimpic teams worlwide will have incentives to outsmart their athletes attemps to hide their doping, which will also increase the quelity of doping tests worldwide. Yes, relays demand teamwork and cooperation. And the notion that either we all play clean or we all get stripped of medals works with this idea. What they describe as inspecting others is know as benign peer pressure and is a well known management technique. Also, opp is surrendering the debate: "A team must be blamed and punished as a group only when the teammates were actually aware of the cheating". They're supposed to oppose every stripping of medals except for doping cheat.
In order to work the risk has to be too big to take

It is true that the usage of drugs during the Olympics, which emphasises fairness, is definitely wrong for its negative influences, such as unfair games and huge risks. However, what we want to centre around is whether the whole team has to be responsible for the wrongdoing of one teammate, which the team may have been unaware of. Olympics is a worldwide game that countries and athletes take pride in and devote their motives into. We argue that depriving the whole team of medals is an absolutely unfair way to deal with cheating; the consequences of cheating should be centred more on the responsible individual. This plan is similar to a scenario where one person cheats on a quiz show and his whole group gets disqualified. And we’re not talking about a quiz here. We are talking about a potentially life-changing show that people have been preparing for years. Should the whole group have to cede all their input efforts? We argue that this is an unfair penalty. Moreover, side Proposition has mentioned that the trainers and athletes will be far more alert about drug abuses and will not take the risk of sacrificing their whole national athletes. However, there is a significant downfall to this argument. The odds of getting away with dope-cheating are high enough for individual athletes to risk disqualification, and, especially in those teams with little or no record of medal-winning, the coaches would be willing to risk ONE Olympics in the hopes of serendipity. If a coach or trainer feels like one of their athletes is doing poorly and needs a dose to enhance their abilities, they would obviously do it. The Proposition plan is still incomplete, as the risk is still not as harsh as the Proposition believes. It’s not quite a big deal for some teams to still take the risk to hit a jackpot. A better course might be to permanently disqualify dope-cheating athletes, and not their teams. In this case, the consequence is irreversible, and only those responsible are involved.
There's no I in team

A team should be punished if it is discovered and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire Olympic team has been involved in illegal ‘organized cheating’. However, this does not mean that just because only one athlete was accused of using performance enhancing drugs, the entire team should be held responsible. You cannot punish someone for simply being affiliated with a person who has cheated. That is akin to arresting someone because their brother stole a car. You cannot punish someone for the bad decision of another. It is an individual’s right to make their own decisions about what they do to their bodies. Even if a convincing argument is made as to why performance enhancing drugs are a god idea, it is ultimately that athlete’s decision whether or not to use them. If the teammates did not also take the drugs, then they should not be punished. Why should we penalize the whole team for making the wrong assumption that their teammate would think twice before doping because s/he will have the entire team to consider? Some athletes are willing to cheat even if they know they are risking their career. Then, here is quite obvious question, is an athlete going to prioritize their career or their team's career? Assuming that their team's career might 'increase the risk' is not going to necessarily prevent any athletes from dope usage, and this is because each individual are even willing to sacrifice their own. Thus, our opposition has also stated that there is ‘peer pressure’, which would apparently make the athlete ‘uncomfortable’, which is illogical. At the end of the day adding pressure to someone will not guarantee that they will make a decision one way or the other. The choice ultimately rests in the hands of the athlete.
The whole team should not be held accountable for something that they might not have been aware of.

As the Olympics are being more commercialized and popular by year, we see that there is a great amount of pressure and an even greater incentive for the athletes to perform as well as they can. First, their wins can greatly affect their countries, and bring them to the spotlight. Second, they will be able to flaunt their new title as an Olympic world champion and feel accomplished. Last but not least, the winners will be able to earn millions of dollars, and live in unprecedented fame. These incentives are the reasons why Olympic athletes in the present continue to cheat, and why some athletes will risk any consequence of getting caught and cheat in the future. If doping cheats are inevitable as long as the aforementioned incentives continue to exist, with the motion, some athletes will lose their legally acquired fame, money and pride because of the wrongdoing of another player. In a classroom of students, there is almost always going to be a few kids that cheat because they see the benefits that cheating without getting caught will bring, such as high grades and happy parents. If one of those children were to get caught cheating, it is not justifiable to punish the entire class. Further, we would like to emphasize that the fear of the entire class being punished is not going to deter those already tempted by the outcomes of a good result from cheating. The position of the Opp today is not that going against the rules set out by the IOC is okay. What we are trying to argue is that the whole team should not be held accountable for something that they might not have been aware of. The only reason that Prop seems to justify the chances of a whole team losing its medals that it had been training for years to get, is that greater consequences may reduce cheating. However, as seen in the past and in the present, cheating is inevitable, and we see that putting so much at stake and justifying such unfairness will not bring any benefits to the fairness of the games.