BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States and Confederaflag are both symbols of slavery...

The United States and Confederaflag are both symbols of slavery and saying the Confederate flag being flown in South Carolina was responsible for the reported shooting in Charleston is an attempt to avoid the larger issues regarding the current racism in the modern United States. The United States flag is not a symbol of abolition of slavery, in that the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the US. The Emancipation Proclamation only addressed Confederate states in rebellion and allowed for slavery to continue in several existing states in the U.S.. Furthermore, as Lincoln was admittedly not an abolitionist and did not consider so called "blacks' to be equal to so called 'whites', the US has no ability to pass judgment on the Confederacy. As racism continues to be a plague in the United States, the recent news coverage regarding the shooting in Charleston is a poor attempt to divert attention away from the US's shortcomings in dealing with its own racist practices in the modern era. shared BOP Opponent must prove that the US flag is not a symbol of slavery. They must also illustrate how the flying of the Confederate flag is relevant to the Charleston shooting and not an attempt to distract the mass' attention from the racist environment that currently exist in the US.
Child Labor should be legal in the united states.

Child Labor has been a very terrible and sometimes even terrible experiences including hundreds of deaths. Although, these faculties occurred due to the fact that there was no restrictions or safety implemented into the child's average work day. Although, if you implement safety standards and are friendly and nice to the child many positives can occur from child labor. It could also potentially be the key to putting the USA in a much better economic position while providing the child with four incredibly amazing opportunities for him/herself, especially if part of a lower Income Family. 1 Children can contribute to family income 2 Poor children can work to pay tuition fees 3 Owners can reduce the cost of production 4 Children gain experienc
Child Labor should be legal in the united states.

First of all, what is experienc? Next, child labor will make many children live lives that they don't intend to live. Parents will force their children into labor just because they live in poverty and need the money to survive. These children will not receive an education and as may not even survive from working in poor conditions before they are adequate to work. Sending a child, lets say 8 years old, into a factory to work, they may develop health issues that could hurt them for the entirety of their lives. Also, in the future these children will have problems getting jobs as they don't have an education because they were working for low wages for their entire childhood. Child labor was intended to benefit in the past, how did that end?
Link would win in a three-way fight with Green Arrow and Hawkeye.

How Green Arrow would beat Link: If you read Green Arrow's wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org...), you would know that Green Arrow has many more different varieties of arrows to work with, as the article states, "Green Arrow is an archer who invents trick arrows with various special functions, such as glue arrows, diversions (smoke), net, explosive, time bomb, grappling, fire extinguishing, flash, boomerang, tear gas arrows, cryonic arrows and even a kryptonite arrow." So, Green Arrow could shoot a smoke/flash arrow to stun Link, and then finish him off with the explosive/time bomb arrows. If he's feeling really cocky, Green Arrow could also unarm Link with his grappling/ boomerang arrows. As you can see, Green Arrow is a threat to Link, even without Hawkeye's help. How Hawkeye could beat Link: In Hawkeye's wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics)), It states "While Hawkeye has no superhuman powers (with the exception of the period when using Pym particles to become Goliath), he is at the very peak of human conditioning; he is an exceptional fencer, acrobat and marksman, having been trained from childhood in the circus and by the criminals Trick Shot and Swordsman." He can dodge Link's swings and arrow shots/chains, and then either unarm with acrobatics and take out with an arrow or sword (it did say he was a good fencer, why not?), or use any of his own arrows, as seen in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org.... This cite also shows more of Green Arrow's arrows, which he could also use. How Green Arrow AND Hawkeye could beat Link as a team: Pretty self explanatory, as stated by the arguments above. As you can see, Green Arrow and Hawkeye could beat Link by themselves, so if they teamed up to defeat the tri-force trooper? Well, that's no contest. I await my opponent's response and rebuttals.
Link would win in a three-way fight with Green Arrow and Hawkeye.

Argument 1: If Green Arrow and Hawkeye were attacking him at 6 and 12 o'clock... Reason 1: Link has a sword to slash normal arrows with. If everybody ran out of arrows, Link could just come up close to Hawkeye or Green Arrow, who had nothing to protect themselves with but their fists and cleave them down with it. Or after bombing a foes whole supply, he could turn around and throw his sword at just the right speed to smack the other foe's bow clean out of his hands but still leave enough time for him to dodge it, thus leaving him vulnerable to one of Link's arrows. Reason 2: He has a shield. He could protect himself from one foe's arrows with it by holding it behind his back, plus he could repeatedly check behind him to see where the behind-foe was. Reason 3: He has his own bombs. Therefore, his opponents' explosives would be useless on him, because he could throw them at the other side's arrows. Or he could bomb an opponent's entire bag of arrows to get them out of the picture quickly. His bombs literally never run out. It's as if he's getting them from hammerspace. Reason 4: Link has a chain. He could wrap an arrow around in it, then swing it around and throw it right back at the enemy who fired it, or he could get close enough and use it to snatch or break one of their bows. Argument 2: If they were attacking him from the same side... Reason 5: Link could still use his shield to protect himself from one side's arrows, while throwing bombs and/or whipping them with his chain to stop the rest of them. To reiterate, he could throw a bomb at an enemy's bag of arrows, leaving them out of the picture. Reason 6: Link could try spinning his chain abruptly. It would create a shield of iron covering his whole front, effectively defending him from the arrows. Argument 3: If one of them fired a net arrow from behind... Reason 7: since Link would be holding his shield behind him and constantly checking the enemy's position, the shield would likely be the only thing caught in the net. As for firing an arrow from the front, if one of his bombs didn't already disintegrate the net, he could see the net coming and cut through it with his sword. There is also still the possibility of Link using his chain. It could grab the net just before it could hit Link.
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language

It's not harder to use with 3+ options, The conjunction is simply saying it is one or more of the options: "I want eggs, Flour, And/or baking soda. " You say we should "pick a real word, " and then proceed to list several words I've never seen before, Some of which make no sense ("RAND"? ). If you were to use "RAND" in an essay, No one would understand what you meant. Same with all the others except "AND-OR, " which is actually used, Rarely, In some writings. Finally, I don't know what your definition of a "real word" is, But AND/OR is generally and used widely in many writings. It is important in logical clarification, And there is no concise and understandable alternative to the conjunction, And therefore AND/OR is not an abomination.
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language

It's harder with 3+ options, But there are rare times when AND/OR could be useful. BUT, It is an invasive species. Its rampant overuse has transformed it from a clarification into an abomination. If you are set on having a "logical clarification, " you should pick a real word. English has compound & hyphenated words, But not slashed words. Here are successively better versions of the abomination (& they obey all the rules of grammar): AND-OR, Hyphenated words exist ANDOR, Save a character, Slash/hyphen not needed ORAND, Better no? RAND, Better still & save a character /, Save 3 more characters by just slash-ing all the options and the best option is. . . ", ". Slashes are ugly so just use comma separated lists. I call it the Red Fox Comma
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language

Your argument is that it is riddled with words such as "usually" or "often. " Just because English speakers usually mean an inclusive OR or exclusive AND's, Doesn't mean a contraction providing less confusion, Such as AND/OR, Would not be useful. To your wife analogy, Let's say she yells, "Wash the car and do the dishes. " In such a scenario, Where she just uses AND, It's thought that you have to do both, But if she used AND/OR and meant you could do both or either, Her statement would have been clarified. The same with the chocolate analogy: "Chocolate or Vanilla, " in context, Can imply you can only have one or the other, But "Chocolate and/or Vanilla" gives clarification that you could have both. And/or is important in logical clarification
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language

My wife yells, "Wash the car or do the dishes! " Is she upset when I do both? -No. We usually mean inclusive OR (A, B, Or both) not XOR (A or B, But not both). Fudge or caramel? Fish or chips? -Both! Your AND/OR sentence is redundant to OR. My friend asks, "Please, Wash the car and do the dishes. " Does he thank me if I only do one? -Yes. Chocolate and vanilla? -Just chocolate, Please. AND/OR is often redundant to AND, Too. Worse, AND/OR is an invasive species--it is never wrong! A rewrite of your final sentence, "you can wash either the car AND/OR the dishes, AND/OR you can do both" allows your original meaning. "We buy/sell x, Y, Z, AND/OR q. " Should be "and". AND/OR is not "important. " English thrived for centuries without it.
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language

AND/OR is an important phrase in the English language. It is unlike both "and" or "or, " as it means more than either of those words by themselves. For example, I could state something to the effect of, "You should wash the car and/or wash the dishes. " This statement is totally different from a) "You should wash the car and do the dishes" or b) "You should wash the car or do the dishes. " In example a), It states you should both wash the car and the dishes, Not one or the other, And in example b), It states you should either wash the car or do the dishes, Not both. But, In the and/or example, The simple sentence now states that you can wash either the car or the dishes, Or you can do both. There is no phrase as simple as and/or to replace it.
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language

Everywhere I go (papers, Books, Articles, Even the spoken word! ) I am accosted with the term AND/OR. It must stop! I will stipulate that in legal documents there is some place for this contraction. However, There are almost zero other times when AND/OR is better than (or even as good as) the two real-English options ("and" and "or"). Use of AND/OR is evidence of mental laziness. 'Gee, I don't want to make the effort to decide whether I should use "and" or "or. " Instead, I'll cover all the bases and use AND/OR. ' In many cases, The use of AND/OR adds confusion. The definition of the term is not the sum of "and" and "or. " ~if you were watching, You noticed that I have always chosen "and" or "or" instead of the abomination~
Mediterranean War Debate

Ok you can't just do that. A worm, if bothered will eat everything so it would take even longer to repair. You know nothing about computers. Also how did you attack a fleet with no causalities? That kind of stuff doesn't happen. Not only that your morale has plummeted. Not only that why didn't my functional planes fight yours off? I still have radar and power? You remind me of me, when I first started. So, wake up! You awake now? Good. Final tally of voids, attack on fleet, bombing of Turkish ports, breaking of cyber attack, sinking of 100 stupid ships with one or two missile boats and bombers. Seriously? Not only that the fleet would not of retreated cuz 6 smaller vessels sunk. Wow. But if you want to be leveled so be it. Voids did not happen. November 6 Turkey imports oil. Bombings continue only these focus on the Israeli food supply. 3,000 trucks are spotted heading for an Israeli encampment. November 7 400 3000 tanks smashes a 2000 tank army leaving only 32 israeli tanks which escape. Due to surprise only 247 Turk tanks are destroyed. Air patrols cannot find tank army. Only medical trucks heading back with wounded. November 9 Paratroopers attack turkey. November 16 One paratrooper falls into Hebron November 7-20 Heavy bombings continue. Radar is still not back up. Most major cities in Israel are completely destroyed. November 21 Israel is starving. Turkey says all defectors will be treated well and allowed to practice their religion. November 22 Patrol craft patrol over the blockade. All boats are on blockade. Reserves mobilized. November 23 In an effort to break the blockade the entire Israeli fleet attacks. A minor victory happens and a transport gets through. November 26 The entire fleet gathers and attacks the Israeli fleet surrounding and bombarding it. 46 Turk ships sink. All Israeli ships sink. November 27 More cyber attacks happen and stop the rebuilding attempts. Power is completely out. This cyber attack focuses on water plants. People are thirsty. Saboteurs blow four airfields and with it 20 planes. Two saboteurs fail so only four. Turkey demands the surrender of Israel: 150 million USD.
Mediterranean War Debate

OCTOBER, 2015October 2 - 2 Brigades of the 98th Paratrooper Division paradrop into Lefkosia and occupy Northern Cyprus. October 4 - Production of two Armored divisions begin, production will finish in February. Production of an Infantry division begins, to be completed in December. October 7-12 - Israeli aircraft, operating out of Lefkosia, begin bombing Turkish ports in the south of Turkey, destroying their capability to transport supplies or repair ships. October 8 - West Bank Division and 1st and 2nd Reserve Armored Divisions are assigned to Northern Command and are deployed to the Lebanese border. October 10 - Turkish software hack is deciphered and eradicated by Israel. October 14-20 - Israeli bombers assault Turkish oil plants, crippling oil production. October 29-30 - Israel bombers bombard the blockading force, sinking 6 smaller vessels, and crippling numerous others. Part of the fleet is forced to retreat to a Northern naval base. October 31 - 3rd Flotilla, made up of highly specialized Missile Boats attack the retreating fleet while bombers continue to assault from the air. 13th Flotilla boards and capture the TCG Bodrum while the remainder of the Turkish fleet is sunk. The assault is over before the remainder of the Turkish blockade force can react. NOVEMBER, 2015November 4 - Israeli bombers assault Inkirlik air base and the city of Adana in Southern Turkey. Surrender? What have you got on the Israeli air force?
Mediterranean War Debate

http://www.globalfirepower.com... September 5 - Cyber attacks cripple Israel. Worms installed in system. September 6 - Bat bomb detonated in Jerusalem, and 12 other major cities. September 7 - Major bombing in those cities. September 9 - Turkey laughs. September 10-24 Major bombing in all Israeli cities. Due to loss of radar and AA missiles the aircraft only have to fear fellow aircraft. Loss 6 aircraft per night. Loss 4.3 aircraft per night for Israel. October 1 100 ships begin blockading Israel. Pays 5 million to Jordan and Syria and Lebanon to allow troops to pass through. Surrender Israel. You will pay 100 million USD to us and we won't annihilate you.
War

A depression is one the characteristics of a business cycle which keep on recurring like prosperity, recession and recovery apart from the war that took place there could have been a cycle of prosperity in the long run. War is not the only method of creating employment and it should not be seen as a positive system. As a result of war people have been displaced from their country of inhabitant as they had to run for safety in neighboring countries. The most important unit of a country which is the family was torn apart, to this very day relatives do not know where their other members are. As a source of employment we should not over look that the weapons for mass destruction are aimed at destroying the human life, on the other hand we say the right to life is a human right, tolerating war means we will be contradicting ourselves as it always ends with armies and civilians killed. As a result of this killings wives were left widows, children lost their fathers and countries lost their leaders. The soldiers that to part in war are left with psychological scars, some have trauma from the bloodshed that occurred during combat, others are even unable to have peaceful sleep as they have nightmares caused by their involvement in war last but not least some had to live with physical scars their whole lives. The two parties in combat end up abusing the inhabitants of the land, there had been cases of child and women being sexually abused by the soldiers, if war is aimed at protecting the vulnerable, why does this happen? . War takes away the value of human life.
War

1929, The Great Depression took place and many Americans did not have a job. Many committed suicide. Farmers stopped working and milking cows because it wasn't worth their hard work and money. This created a dustbowl that took lives and hurt many people. World War II started and created jobs. Ammunitions, battle armors, planes, rations and health kits were made. All different people were needed; farmers, technicians, medics, nurses, engineers, contractors, etc. With out this war the depression could still be going on.
War

My argumentation is that war should be abolished in every country.As it does not bring anything of value to the inhabitants,in most cases the people who are affected are not the ones in power ,but the vulnerable which are the civilians. There should be a measure put in place to solve disagreements instead of fighting. After every war there are depressions producing internal unrest which leads to the continuous cycle of war. The development of hi-tech weapons have resulted in the destruction of both sides in a short time thus its destruction is more catastrophic on the human race .Countries that have a history of war have suffered from economic crises that caused them to have an economic depression. Taking into consideration the long run effects of war, it should never be an option.Governments should have a skilful diplomacy put in place of war and they should avoid political controversies that may cause feuds with the affected countries as this will be adding fuel to the existing fire.
Tea making. Milk should go in after and not before the tea.

I hope your suffering from sub-standard tea has not been too arduous. Now, if we put the milk in first we are then committed to how our tea tastes. The brilliant thing about putting milk in last is that we can keep pouring until it seems the right colour. Unless we have the superhuman ability of knowing exactly how much milk is needed to make the perfect cuppa then we will probably have the task of re-opening the milk bottle and pouring in some more milk or be upset when you find you had already put too much in and there is no way back. I too am a fan of the cookie, or as we say in Britain, 'biscuit'.
Tea making. Milk should go in after and not before the tea.

A debate that needs resolving urgently or the tragic bad practice of tea making will continue, resulting in the suffering of the many who are unawares to their mistake! If the tea bag is in the milk before the water this cools the water to quickly which effects the brewing! Try the two, milk first always tastes disgusting! Jolly good, hope this is resolved soon. While I wait for a response I think I'll go and have a cup of tea. And yes I am British.
Should school officials be armed

Your information concerning the death toll of columbine is incorrect. 13 were shot, and then the two shooters killed themselves. They killed 13, not 15. Regarding the armed guards, Columbine was the first real school tragedy of it's kind. Police didn't even know what to do. They could have stopped the shooting, but the key to the fact that they didn't was due to their inaction. Because it is due to their inaction, it makes it irrelevant to this debate. If the unlikely event where to occur in which all armed officials where shot, then even if they haven't stopped the shooter, they have bought the police time. While there is a prison close to our school, we are not talking only about our school but the entire nation's school. Does every school have a police presence so close? And your saying putting a police station near every school in the country would cost less? Construction costs alone would be in the thousands, plus employment issues and building permits. And this is for every Pre-school, elementary school, middle school and high school in America. And no, I would not say the gun should be locked in a drawer. As I stated, the gun would be in a safe holster with precautions, on the teacher at all times. You mentioned that there would be no psychological testing, but that is absurd. Of course teachers would have testing and classes. You mentioned school being for education, but who are you providing education for if your students are all dead?
Should school officials be armed

well according to huffingtonpost.com there were armed guards at the columbine high school shooting but that didn't stop just 2 kids, just...2...kids from killing 15 kids and wounding 23 others and while yes they were off duty when the shooters came they still shot at the shooters and what good does a gun do if you can't take down the gunman. Now if only 1 or 2 teachers had a gun then what would happen if they both got shot then what huh? They are not going to be stopped. There may not be a police station by schools but by our school there is a security prison probably less than a minute away and that would limit kids getting killed a lot or even to none. Another solution to this problem is we could just put a police station next to the school and that would probably cost about the same amount to give guns to the teachers and is not even the schools money so we could use are money on other things for the school, also most likely were going to have to give the guns to more than 2 teachers. Now you might say that the teacher could lock the gun in the drawer but what if the shooter comes in unexpectedly than it's going to take time for the teacher to unlock the drawer and before the teacher can do it BAMN! the teachers dead and that gives the shooter a better chance of killing more kids. If the shootings on a high school or college campus than that's a pretty big campus and what if there is not a teacher on that side of the campus that has a gun then how are they going to stop the shooter. Now my last and final point, if we spend all that money on guns than were not going to have a lot of money to spend on the children's education which is why we are in school or... is school not for education.