BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers

I beleive that teachers should be hired based on their qualifications, experience and how suitable they are for the job; not their sexuality. For this reason, I beleive that not hiring someone because they are homosexual is wrong, as this shouldn't be a higher priority than their suitability for the job. (1)Another point is that it is setting a bad example for students if the school discriminates when hiring. How can a school tell its' pupils to be kind and accepting when the school itself isn't? By being hypocritical, it is setting a terrible example for kids, and they could easily follow the school's example and be mean and bullying. Students are suposed to see their head-teachers as role models, and if they are being discriminative this could have a bad effect on students who look up to them. What kind of message are we passing down to students if the school ITSELF isn't being kind and accepting? If it begins here, where does it stop? By not letting homosexuals teach in schools, how long will it be until we don't let black people, or Asians, or Muslims, or any other nationality/ethnicity/sexuality teach at schools? It could be the start of a very discriminative system in schools. Sorry I don't have many other arguments to present at this moment, but I look forward to rebutting those of the Pro. Thanks!1. . http://wiki.answers.com...
Partisanship defines you!!!

Watching the primaries unfold I submit that: If you are a legitimate supporter of a candidate of a certain party, it is impossible to move your support to a candidate of a different party barring an intense personal ideological change. The reason is simply that the parties have become to polarized. If I am a Romney supporter, it goes against everything I stand for to endorse Obama, for instance. The parties and their candidates are so opposite on nearly every issue, switching between candidates of different parties is impossible.
Partisanship defines you!!!

The problem is your argument seems to be narrowing with each round. First, no Independents. Now, people who have some Liberal beliefs but would side with Governor Huckabee on social issues "would certainly not be the viable one that I make my claim about." What you seem to be contending is that those people who are so ideological that they support their party on, well, everything (very few people probably fit THAT description) wouldn't switch to the other party under any circumstances. That's not really even an argument -- it's more of a tautology. With respect to history, I never said it guarantees anything -- just that it's often instructive when evaluating what's going on now or making predictions about the future. In any event, you keep harping on the fact that the parties are more "polarized" now than in the past, but you've presented absolutely no evidence of any kind to support this. I listed a plethora of issues on which there is bipartisan agreement, and you simply shrugged them off as not being "key" or "electoral" issues. "Issues like capital punishment don't matter as much to voters by any means, polls indicate this." Tell that to Michael Dukakis. He was the last presidential candidate to oppose the death penalty, and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even assuming that polls actually do indicate that capital punishment doesn't matter to voters, a key reason for that might be that THE PARTIES PRETTY MUCH AGREE ON IT. Since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats actually oppose the death penalty, of course the death penalty is not going to be a "voting issue" for most Americans, regardless of how important the issue is them. Of course is Even on the economy, which you list as a "key" issue, there is agreement, at least to an extent. Neither Republicans nor Democrats seriously oppose free trade agreements, for example. In addition, as I said, at least some moderate Democrats crossed the aisle and supported the Bush tax cuts. Good debate.
Partisanship defines you!!!

1. Independents Independents are NOT by definition undecided voters by any stretch (and this is certainly not "common sense"). The fact that somebody has not declared an allegiance to a party does not mean they don't have a strong desire to see a particular candidate elected. When you talk about independents and undecided voters, you are talking about two different (though perhaps overlapping to a degree) sets of people. In the New Hampshire Primary, independents overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama. Voters who were undecided until the eve of the primary ended up splitting right down the middle between Obama and Hillary. 2. History/Polarization People always say we are somehow more "polarized" than in the past, but I haven't really seen that much hard evidence of it. There was plenty of disagreement and mudslinging going on two decades ago, believe me. If anything, the parties were farther apart back then since it was before the Democrats "triangulated" on issues like welfare reform. There are plenty of issues where there's been agreement: NAFTA (for the most part, both parties favor it), the death penalty (neither party will run a Presidential candidate opposing it), to name a couple. Don't forget that No Child Left Behind, the Bush Tax Cuts, and McCain/Feingold were all the result of bipartisan support (at least to some extent). The notorious "Gang of 14" giving Bush headaches on his judicial nominees included Republicans, notably Senator McCain. Besides, even if the parties are different, why is that such a bad thing? It's good to have real choices, rather than two parties that only have minor disagreements. 3. Applicability "Huckabee and Romney's social views are too similar to cause conflict that would somehow override the drastic differences on every other issue between Huckabee and Obama." First, there are differences between Romney and Huckabee -- most notably that Romney does not favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion, which is a very big deal to lots of people. And many people think all of Romney's social views are phony anyway. Besides, it's not just Romney and Huckabee. What about Romney and McCain? Surely there's plenty of difference THERE.
Partisanship defines you!!!

1) Independents Independents are undecided voters. Its simply common sense that people who haven't declared a party are either not supporting a particular candidate (undecided), or are supporting a candidate but don't label themselves as one or the other. The latter is the only thing we disagree on. If they truly support a candidate of a particular party, they fit into my claim that they are not able to switch. Otherwise, they are independent because they are undecided, and I don't claim to cover them. 2) History Studying history allows us insight, but not when the circumstances are different. The parties are more polarized now then they have been in decades. Election results from two decades ago can not be postured into today's electoral circumstances. What held true then doesn't hold true now. Party politics is drastically different. 3) Party Polarization The parties are almost entirely polarized. Yes, there are things that they agree on, but they aren't electoral issues. Things like a stronger economy, more secure borders and creating jobs are all things we can universally agree on. What I'm talking about and the issues in the election are how to get those things accomplished. The goals are the same, but the means are opposite. Its not as if one party wants a weak America while the other doesn't. The ways about which we better America is where they disagree and where the support lies. These opinions on means differ so greatly that it makes it impossible to switch candidates in different parties. 4) Possibility/Applicability There is no issue that Huckabee and Romney or Clinton and Obama differ on enough to cause this. That is my very argument. Huckabee and Romney's social views are too similar to cause conflict that would somehow override the drastic differences on every other issue between Huckabee and Obama. Each parties candidates are too similar to warrant this. I urge you to point to a specific issue that would cause this. My argument is that this issue does not exist and therefore, no viable supporter could switch from a candidate in one party to a candidate from another. The similarities between the candidates in their respective parties is so apparent, that their would not be enough of a difference to warrant a switch to a candidate of another party, now that the differences between the parties are so sharp.
Partisanship defines you!!!

First, your argument for independents is true. I am not claiming that there are no such thing as independents. These people have yet to decide who they endorse and, therefore, do not apply to the debate or my claim. I claim that legitimate supporters of candidates could not change their support to a candidate of a different party without a drastic personal shift. Yes, candidates have drawn support from across the aisle in the past. This is obvious and I don't deny it. My claim applies to the here and now. The parties have become so polarized and so different on every issue of the day that supporting one party, then supporting the other is impossible without a change. The parties have almost no common ground. Even on common issues, like securing the border, the two parties and the candidates in them are very different in the way in which we go about it. On amnesty, the war, the economy, education, the bush tax cuts, each and every issue is met by sharply contrasting views. To leave a republican and support a democrat would require a MAJOR shift in personal views on these topics. The only argument you seem to make that would really apply to my claim is that some issues are more important to people and that would make them endorse the other party. This is impossible. Any reason that you would support Romney, for example, would be totally abandoned in your support for Clinton. Your conflict with Huckabee would not be as severe as your conflict with Obama because the differences between Huckabee and Romney are slight, while the differences between Romeny and Obama are drastic, to say the least.
Partisanship defines you!!!

This is simply an inaccurate generalization, especially when applied to open primaries where independents are allowed to vote. In 2000, John McCain overwhelmingly won the New Hampshire Primary over George W. Bush because there was a huge turnout of Independents who supported him. When Bush got the nomination, he won New Hampshire very narrowly in the general election (only Nader's voters likely cost Gore the state) because many of the independents who supported McCain ultimately voted for Gore or Nader. This year, Barak Obama won Iowa with a ton of independent support. Hillary Clinton has more support among registered Democrats. Given Hillary's enormously high negative ratings, it is very possible that at least some Obama supporters despise her to the extent that they would support a Republican against her in the general election. In fact, Obama is already receiving at least some support from outright Republicans: www.republicansforobama.com There have been plenty of candidates throughout history who have garnered so much support as to entice voters from across the aisle. Look up the term "Reagan Democrats," for example. Because Carter's policies were such a disaster, so many Democrats jumped ship in 1980 and 1984 that Reagan carried almost every state! If I am a Romney supporter, it may or may not go against everything I stand for to support Obama or Clinton in the general election. It largely depends on WHY I am a Romney supporter. Suppose I support Romney because of his views on the economy and national security, but not so much on social issues. Suppose that Mike Huckabee (for the sake of argument) has social and religious viewpoints that I HEAVILY oppose despite my being an otherwise loyal Republican. If Huckabee wins, I might very well see Obama or Clinton as the more acceptable candidate without any degree of personal ideological change.
The Mandela effect is fake.

Sorry you weren't expecting someone who doesn't believe in the trans-dimension theory. But now we're getting into some interesting territory: Is the trans-dimension theory a part of Mandela Effect? According to my first link [http://whatis.techtarget.com...], the Mandela Effect is merely a widely shared false memory. Various sites directly link the two, or just say Mandela Effect's its own thing.To actually say Mandela Effect's merely a false memory, I'd point to the "effect" part. It likely refers to the fact that it's an effect on the brain. Though honestly, it's up to interpretation. I see the Mandela Effect as the effect of the human percieving information, then remembering it wrong.Also, my opponent claims that whoever has a false memory is stupid. If you look at a few sites about the Effect, they'll probably say "many people". I can't find a number or percent, but it sounds widespread. So my opponent's basically calling many people (again, I don't have any numbers), stupid. First, perhaps that's true. It would explain why Mandela Effect's so common. Second, you can't really prove anyone's stupid, especially when they can look anything up (making quizzing pointless).In short, you can't really disprove that the Mandela Effect is a thing. It's practically a truism, with so many people having false memories. Even my argument can be boiled down/strawmanned to "people are dumb". Also, I'm not sure if you can prove that we did cross dimensions (Mandela Effect doesn't count as solid evidence for the trans-dimension theory).
The Mandela effect is fake.

Well, this whole thing sorta ruins my day. I was planning on debating someone nutty who believed in the crazy dimensional thing. Now, we're just debating on the same side, kinda. Still, I'll try to finish this thing up as best I can. I claim that The Mandela effect doesn't just apply to the sensation of an incorrect memory. It refers to the dimensional thing too. If the Mandela effect only refers to the sensation of an inaccurate memory, it should only be called a false memory. It should not be distinguished from somebody who doesn't remember things well, and it should not be used as an excuse for being inept. If I was given those two lists, I wouldn't think they shared anything in common, because my memory is good. Some idiot might take that test, and they would fail. But not me, I'm smart. The effect of false memory varies as the intelligence of the person varies. I know a lot of trivia and small bits of facts that would help me to distinguish between a fake product spelling and a real product spelling. I've also seen products for a thousand times at the store, and I'm a language nut, all of which help me decide if anything has been altered. Many people might actually know that the peanut butter is called Jif, or the air freshener is called Febreze, but, in the average Mandela effect video, the narrator will begin with something like, "Remember how you always used to eat JIFFY peanut butter as a kid and you'd spray FEBREEZE around?" Then he'll go on to show us the actual spellings. As you can see, the narrator provides us with the phony spelling first, so we receive a false memory. We think that we thought the fake spelling was right, when, in reality, we knew about the real spelling all along. This type of presentation is how the trick is done, and it can be deviously damaging to a person's psyche. Anyhoo, that's all I have to say about it right now. People who have fake memories are either very stupid or they've been manipulated by others. I await your next argument.
The Mandela effect is fake.

Again, I also think the idea of two dimensions is a dumb idea. I even underlined that part in Round 2. Though I have to ask one question to make sure: Do you believe in people having memories of information or events that never existed? If not, then why is this so common? Though it seems you do agree with my view of the Mandela Effect.Explanation, Part 2:I'll take my time to expand on how easily fooled people's memories can be. This site goes into depth on the human memory: https://www.fastcompany.com...Let's say I give someone this list: Flame, Ember, Burning, Hot, Smokey, Charred. Then, I give the same person another list; Earth, Water, Pony, Fire, Nature, Cloud, Fresh. Which word does both lists share? None, actually! But if I gave that test to a person, they'd say Fire is shared, even though it's not. The words on the 1st list are around that category, so it makes sense. A similar test was made by Dr Caroline Racine, on the link above (a bit below "FALSE MEMORIES CAN BE AS STRONG AS TRUE MEMORIES"). I'd consider this a lesser Mandela Effect, but you decide if you agree.The human mind can be fooled easily. Pro even gave some examples for us on why people would have false memories of the 3 Mandela Effects I listed.[Another disclaimer; 2/3 of my sources in Round 2 come from a site which supports the trans-dimensional theory. This is just a coincidence as it was one of the first links Google provided. My argument doesn't support that theory.]
The Mandela effect is fake.

Now, I'll get into different cases of the Mandele Effect, and my interpretation of how (some) our false memories come to be. Examples:Berenstain Bears is how it's spelled, but people remember Berenstein. Here's an article talking about it; . http://mandelaeffect.com...Darth Vader's quote is "No, I am your father", but people remember "Luke, I am your father". Here's the full scene; ;[skip to 1:40]It's spelled "Looney Tunes", but people remember "Looney Toons". Here's an article talking about it; . http://mandelaeffect.com...Those are the first 3 that came to mind. There's a lot more out there if you're willing to look up any more. Explanation:So why do we have these false memories? Could we be living in another dimension? Is the government hiding time machines? Of course not! There's a simpler theory I came up with; perhaps we're just forgetful or don't pay attention. People's memories of details are simplistic. Take Looney Toons as an example; it's a cartoon, so it makes sense it'd be spelled like "toons". But it's not. Conclusion:I'll probably research a bit further as to why the Mandela effect happens. Again, Mandela Effect only refers to the memories; the time travel/dimension swap part was added by conspirists and I don't agree with their interpretation. But my opponent can't deny that this phenomenom exists. Additional note; don't simply dismiss my arguments. Find evidence to refute them.
The Mandela effect is fake.

The Mandela effect is 100% hokum. In this round, I will establish what it is and why it's the stupidest thing ever. The Mandela effect is a convenient way for idiots who remember things poorly to excuse their lack of knowledge and their bad memory. This method is ridiculous and insane. The idiot will state that they have crossed from a dimension where they were right to a dimension where they are wrong. It could be possible, so many people acknowledge this lazy idiocy as an actual scientific phenomenon. Many times, the inaccurate memory is so subtle that it seems inconceivable that the idiot will not admit their stupidity. For instance, it's spelled febreze instead of febreeze. This isn't the kind of thing that would be a big deal, but these idiots say that they were right in the OTHER dimension, and that this one is wrong. It's like throwing a temper tantrum, but for grownups. The sad truth is that their memories are simply inaccurate, and they didn't cross an interdimensional barrier, because nothing like that happens in real life. I await your next argument.
The Mandela effect is fake.

The burden of proof is shared.The Mandela Effect is defined as "The Mandela effect is the observed phenomenon of people having clear memories of events that did not occur or misremembering significant events and facts.", gotten from this site: http://whatis.techtarget.com...I'll be talking about a few popular examples of the Mandela Effect in Round 2, as well as why I think it happens.
The Mandela effect is fake.

It's time for my closing rebuttal. Let's see what I can do.Rebuttal:"The Mandela effect and the trans dimensional theory are intertwined. Without the trans dimensional theory, the Mandela effect is nothing more than a false memory."Not exactly. The Mandela Effect is simply a large group sharing a false memory. My first link agrees with this view."I claim that having a false memory is stupid. If a person can't remember what Darth Vader says, or how Looney Tunes is spelled, they are bad at memorizing things, and thus probably have a lower I.Q. than people who can recall things easily."I feel like you're slowly going into insulting other people. Anyways, memory and beliefs can work strangely. If you keep telling yourself X is true, eventually you'll believe X is true, and always has been. This likely also plays a role in the Mandela Effect. (and one could say this is the "alternate dimension")"True, I'm sure anything could be solved with a Google search, but remember, Mandela effect situations use a sneaky trick. the fake memory and the real memory are so subtle that there can be an air of mystery about them. Don't you find it strange that EVERY Mandela effect has something to do with the misspelling of a name? This is because misspellings are subtle and people rarely ever notice them, and when a misspelling is brought to their attention they'll gasp in shock."I didn't say this since it didn't agree with my argument on humans not remembering subtle details, but do you know why it's called the Mandela Effect? It's named after Nelson Mandela, whom many believed died in prison in the 1980s. Turns out, he was still alive, being released from prison in 1990, and died in 2013. This is one of the bigger Mandela Effects, and not just a mere spelling error."As for multiple dimensions, people may not be able to disprove it, but they can't prove it, either. These nuts have created a story that nobody can disprove, no matter how unlikely it..."At the end of my Round 4, I conceded that there's no evidence for the trans-dimension.Conclusion:It's undeniable that the Mandela Effect exists. But whether we should include the trans-dimension theory? I don't think we should. So who made the better arguments?