BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Preparatory Schools cultivate elitism

Thank you for the great arguments. As a high school student, hoping to commit myself to the debate society, I have learned a lot from you. If you have any debate tips I would really appreciate it. All I need to do is LEARN. I do not wish to continue as I am not experienced enough to rebuttal such strong arguments. Please, any one reading, or my opponent, leave me some advice, practice methods, performance tips and help in the formulation of ideas. Thank you very much for a wonderful conversation.
Preparatory Schools cultivate elitism

DEFENSE 1)Students Complement One Another Most prep schools require admissions test which are meant to weed out less academically qualified students. Unless a student is an incredible athlete or musician, they will have to score above a baseline to be admitted to a prep school. This baseline is markedly higher than average intelligence of the average American student. The result is that while not all students at prep schools are geniuses, they are all intelligent and many excel in other activities. You will still run into the same problem. When you take a student body that is academically, athletically, and/or culturally superior to public school counterparts attitudes of elitism will inevitably arise. For example at many prep schools attending a prestigious college is a requirement and those who end up at the state school are looked down upon. 2)International/Racial Diversity Although prep schools may admit students from out of the country they still face huge problems with racial diversity. The international students are either extremely smart or gifted in some other activity to be able to attend overseas prep schools. Furthermore this article illustrates that at prestigious public prep schools the amount of Hispanic and black admits are falling. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com... Although a segment of the student population calls themselves "persons of color" this fails to account for the fact that white culture dominates prep schools. African Americans may attend but many are culturally more white than black (if that makes sense). There may be African Americans on campus, but too often African American culture is not present. 3)Community Service Applicants may have participated in community service prior to admission and students may learn of their love for the community, but at the end of the day the service isn't voluntary. Unless a student goes above the number of hours required by the school it appears they are only trying to fulfill a requirement, much like a criminal who is ordered to do community service by a judge.
Preparatory Schools cultivate elitism

Rebuttal: Point 1 - "Prep schools insulate the best and brightest from their public education peers." - There are certain students who attend prep schools that are intellectually gifted, yes. However, when the admission staff are selecting their pupils, they pick variety. Consequently, a Canadian hockey player may attend the school with academic records that are not too flash. A trombone player may be accepted with zero athletic ability and average grades. A well rounded student, active community participant, good at sports, receives good marks may be accepted - but this pupil will not be the "best". So to summarize, pupils, each with different areas of skills and weaknesses compliment each other to form a unique, diverse student body. Point 2 - "Prep schools do not accurately reflect the American populace." - Their attempts to create diversity and racial harmony is a work in progress of course. The schools are situated in red-neck, prejudice America and they are taking a great leap of faith attempting to unite all nations in a rigorous academic institution. The more advertising of variety they publicize, the more culturally diverse students will be applying. On average, the most prestigious prep schools, have 25-30% of international students. These schools are beginning to affiliate themselves with students of the middle east and various Caribbean islands. Perhaps the aim for diversity started as propaganda, but it sure is developing. For example, Choate Rosemary Hall has students registering for the fall of 2010, that come from 25 countries and regions and 22 states. Choate also has 35-40% students of color. Obviously the schools can not cater to the entire American nation financially, however the majority of that financial aid does go to Americans (the ones who are dedicated, focused, confident). Sad fact is that the "far larger percent of Americans" that would need FA would not qualify anyhow for admittance. Point 3 - "Compulsory volunteer service isn't volunteer service" - For the students who are not motivated by community service already, it gives them the opportunity to feel the emotional gratification of helping others out and experience the sufferings of the less privileged. FYI, interest in community service is a big selling point on the applicant form for the admissions office - thus, many giving, generous people are accepted who conduct volunteer service entirely voluntarily.
Preparatory Schools cultivate elitism

Thanks for this interesting topic. I am under the impression that Apple14 is advocating that Preparatory Schools DO NOT foster elitism. If I have misinterpreted this please let me know. I accept my opponent's definition for elitism. Point 1: Prep schools insulate the best and brightest from their public education peers. Whether or not prep schools intend to foster an environment of elitism they inevitably will. My opponent states that admission to prep schools is reserved for "select candidates to attend those academies do have emotional strength – power – and many of them are talented." When you group an elite group together elitism attitudes will inevitably follow. Point 2: Prep schools do not accurately reflect the American populace. Like almost all private schools and universities, administrators try to paint a picture of diversity, racial harmony, and inclusiveness through brochures, websites, and pictures which showcase people of all backgrounds working together. The sad reality is that diversity stops at those pictures. Prep schools are too wealthy, too white, and too privileged. At some of the nation's best prep schools the darkest people there work on the janitorial staff. Although my opponent points out that 1/3 of students receive FA a far larger percent of Americans would need FA to attend a $20,000 a year school. Point 3: Compulsory volunteer service isn't volunteer service My opponent finally points to the fact that many prep schools require community service. It is impossible to gauge how genuine this service is if it is required by the school. These efforts are mandated by school officials who want to give the impression that the school and its students care about the community. When you look at public schools community service is often conducted through organizations or individually. The community service is truly voluntarily and thus more meaningful, than the prep school requirements.
Preparatory Schools cultivate elitism

Elitism is defined as the ideology that favor " a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent or wealth" Prep schools are the most competitive, academically rigorous schools that place high value on intellectual curiosity, athletic excellence and giving back. People who can count themselves amoung the select candidates to attend those academies do have emotional strength – power – and many of them are talented. They are the best in a particular category – the applicant pool. All candidates are considered despite their wealth or family prestige. In fact, in the top prep schools, on average, a third of the student body is receiving financial aid. This leaves no room for ignorance or for pretentious ideas to grow in students' minds as they are surrounded by people of all financial states, nations and talents. Moreover, prep schools place a high value on diversity – of culture, of economic state, of personal values. Community service is often a requirement – develops cognizance of those who are less fortunate and the realities outside of the prep school bubble.
Terraria is better than Minecraft

**Good luck to my opponent!**So first of all, I just want to say that Minecraft is a great game. It's very successful and there's no denying that the community and everything is wonderful. So with that out of the way - Here we go:Minecraft has No Clear Goal:Minecraft tends to have no focused experience. By this I mean that there is no goal in the game. It's a sand box, and most of what a player does is entirely up to them. You can do anything you want to do in the game, but it often feels like a level editor, in the sense that you can make anything you want - rather than a game in which you play for a certain purpose. You can choose to defeat the Enderdragon in order to "beat the game", but it there is no true end goal.Terraria has a Clear Goal:Though Terraria is also a sandbox, there is a purpose to the game. The guide tries to show the player where to go next and how to progress throughout the game. There are different bosses that can be summoned to defeat, and overall the purpose of the game is clear, while still maintaining to be a sandbox. This way the game doesn't compell you to do a certain thing, and gives you the option to chooseGame Items:Ok, so let's talk about all of the items of the game. Alright so when it comes to the items in the game - terraria has a LOT more than minecraft. We can start off with the armor. Minecraft has 19 sets of armor (including all colors of leather armor), while Terraria has 21. Terraria has 119 weapons compared, while Minecraft only has 19 (Including TNT, and Splash potions with negative effect.) Terraria has more enchantments, tools, ores, and crafting stations then Minecraft. All of these different items allows for much greater variety of gameplay and more things to explore when compared to MinecraftNPC'SCurrently, the NPC's in Minecraft are only useful for trading. Other than that they is barely any use. In Terraria there are more than 12 NPC's that are all useful in their own way in order to provide items to the player in order to help them along their journey.Adventure of mining:Terraria is defineately the most adventurous of the 2 games. Mining in Terraria is most definately more adventurous when compared to Minecraft, as are many different aspects. Mining in terraria can be a lot longer process than in Minecraft, and you are often confronted with numerous different enemies. The different layers definately add to mroe variety in the game, and the overall feeling is just great. In minecraft - no doubt the zombies and spiders chasing after you can bring a sense of adventure. But after you have played the game for a while, mining can get quite repatitive, where as in Terraria it never get's oldBosses:In Minecraft there are currently 2 bosses: The Ender Dragon and the Wither. However, in Terraria there are 18 bosses. The strategy involved to beat all of the bosses in Terraria takes more skill than it does in MiencraftOk... I'm getting tired so I'll stop here (lol)**Good luck to my opponent**
Terraria is better than Minecraft

**I will now rebut to con's case** OK so con starts off stating that Minecraft is more creative. While this may be true - Terraria has more adventure. And while you may not be able to build to the scale of Minecraft - You can certainly make amazing things in Terraria as well. Check out this link: http://www.pcgamer.com... Next, my opponent states that a "MAN EATER" is disgusting. First of all, there is no boss in Terraria called the "MAN EATER". My opponent might be referring to the "Eater of the Worlds", but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the resolution. "Minecraft has slimes." This clearly proves that my opponent has not played Terraria at all. Anyone that plays Terraria will know that the game has slimes as well... and most players encounter slimes around 2 minutes after starting the game. And in my opinion - the slimes in Terraria are pretty "cute" as well. The last argument my opponent makes is probably the only clear argument I see. He states, "While having much less Minecraft is more quality, not quantity." But my opponent fails to prove how Minecraft has more quality. Simply stating that it has more quality doesn't mean anything. The quality in Terraria is based on it's quantity. There are more ores, types of armor, tools, npc's etc. These things add to the quality of the game because there are more things to do and explore. It allows for endless hours of fun, while still being a sandbox game. Vote For PRO! **Nice debate. Just some advice: You should always try to present every weak point in your opponent's argument, and strengthen your own. There are many things that you missed out on saying that you could have easily pointed out was wrong with Terraria. Anyways - had fun debating , and Have a Great Day!**
Terraria is better than Minecraft

Well... That is a certainly compelling argument. Minecraft is superior when it comes to creativity. It has three whole dimensions where you can freely express your redstone skills, live in the Eiffel Tower, look at terrain much better than Terraria, and even look at those cute Endermen! Terraria has a MAN EATER. What? That's disgusting. I wouldn't seriously want to battle a MAN EATER. Minecraft has slimes. Aww, aren't they so cute? While having much less, Minecraft is more quality, not quantity.
Ban on all guns

I will respectfully disagree with your statement. I think us, as American citizens should be able to feel protected. For many reasons such as: The right was granted in our constitution. As an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Let's say, you're walking down the street all by yourself. You're walking and come across someone trying to mug you, kidnap you, trying to harm you, or rape you and the perpetrator has a weapon. You can either fight for a struggle and increase your chances of being shot/stabbed/beaten. Another option is running away which is a higher chance of not getting away. Another is pulling out your cell phone and telling the perpetrator to hold on when I phone the police for help. Now, the most logical option is having a defense weapon on you and using that for your protection. Let's go back a few years shall we. Out in Nevada, a female college student purchased a firearm for her protection. She was a law abiding woman and citizen and left her firearm off the campus grounds since they were banned there. She was walking out to her car and she mugged, beaten, and raped. If she was carrying her firearm she could have easily scared the man away or shot him and she would never have to live with the memory of being forced upon. Also, if people say guns kill people so do cars, knife's, fists, and golf clubs because at least one of those things has been in a crime. Also, if you have a family and if someone breaks into your residence, you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Police yes, are there for a reason, but calling them is not always the best thing because the time between you and the perpetrator and the police getting there damage can be done. It only takes a split second for someone to die of a wound. Also, if guns were banned, people can still get access to them. Most drugs are outlawed and banned right? Well people still use cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, and some states ban marijuana including the ban of medical. When people want those things, they go to a dealer, pay for them and use them. Now, we already have illegal firearm sales going on all over the country. For drunk drivers, I see them on the news all the time, most of the time they result in drunk driving deaths. Well, this about guns and not firearms and I can see your point though but let's stay on the topic here. Most firearm crime cases are them being obtained illegally. Most of them are. If guns kill people then cars make people drive drunk, pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat. I thank you for this round to hope to hear back from you.
Ban on all guns

We should ban guns as that means there will be no more gun crimes. We have banned cocaine and there is no more cocaine in this country. Including myth, marijuana...... Drinking and driving is outlawed. I am glad I don't see on the news of drunken driving murders anymore. This Colorado maniac purchased 10 gallons of gasoline to be part of his bomb that was setup as a trap. That excess amount of gas should have been regulated. Who needs more than a gallon of gasoline from the pump!!! We need to ban such high amount of gasoline purchase right away.
Ban on all guns

New to the site and have found a passion for debating. I would like to improve my debate skills.This one is a serious, but mostly just for fun and help me improve. I would like to debate with a pro-gun ban leaning person. I will not be disrespectful or call you any names. I would like the same for my opponent. Respectful, mindful, and open minded about all things going to be said. Thank you!
Ban on all guns

We tell the people that guns are banned and I know those hardened criminals will understand and comply and register their weapons the same day the announcement is made. And we should proudly put signs on our windows and front lawn indicating that we are anti-gun and you may not bring guns into our homes as we don't allow them here. The Cine mark theater where this attack happened had those signs and policies clearly posted. This one criminal must have been illiterate to have missed it. I know all criminals after seeing those signs would have known to leave their guns at home. Sure federal buildings are well protected. But places like schools, churches and many other places where laws clearly state that guns are not allowed have never been targets of mass murders. If I was crazy and knew of places where guns are banned, that is the last place I would target knowing that my gun would cease to function as soon as I get there and wait for the police to come by after a few minutes. Listen to people like Mayor Bloomberg. We should all become public officials and receive around the clock protection and have enough money to hire our own protection while taking guns out of only the law abiding citizens. His home address is proudly listed and people know that there are no guns there because he is against all guns. Look to the rest of the world like peaceful UK with very strict gun laws. Your family is sitting peacefully at home and some thug comes in to rob you with a big knife. They know you don't have a gun. What is there to worry about? If a home invader put a gun down on a table and told you that in 1 minute he is going to shoot your baby, you wouldn't pick up that gun and use it because you are proudly anti-gun mom.
Ban on all guns

In light of the carnage in Newton, I wish people on both sides - but especially the gun advocates - would stop talking right now about crime and criminals. In order to take one positive step forward, to save lives when there is a future incident, Americans need to take measures to eradicate ALL semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from the marketplace and from public arsenals. It won't happen in a day but surely the logic can be seen that the less of these weapons and magazines there are, the less carnage there will be. It isn't about solving violent crime, it's about stopping the massacres.
we would be better off without religion.

fair comments. what would taking away peoples faiths lead to, as i said for some it is a way of life. if the religion was taken away they wouldnt be actively religious but still use parts of it to keep themselves inside of their own expectations. In current times where religion does tend to be dwindling, imagine the lack of religious morals passed down to children because as the religion dies out people forget the original meaning for their actions. compare todays society with society 100 years ago. Religion was a part of life, children didnt have a choice they went to church end of. Today there is wide-spread drugs, alcohol,bullying, weapons, all sorts of problems we as a generally unreligious nation show in comparison to china for example who practise in buddhism have less problems.
we would be better off without religion.

Good point, however religion was not created out of the goodness of people's hearts. In Islam you are sentenced to death if you change your religion. Even people who are part of non-violent religions are targeted by people unfairly. Do you think if religion never existed we would be able to morally be good people? I mean of course we can because now atheists ( like myself ) are morally good people. We do not need religion to keep us in line anymore, times have changed and we need to move on.
we would be better off without religion.

state how religion causes harm and the ratio of it to good. religion is so complex you cannot generalize it and dismiss it. Religion defines some cultures, it is peoples way of life and their faith in their religion keeps them positive. The ins and outs of every religion would take too much to explore deeply,for example buddhists believe in non-violence and strive to find the cure to all suffering, how is this causing harm? extremists nowadays are pretty rare therefore the positive compounds of religion such as encouraging moral values, humane , hope, togethernesss and hope, hard-working and helpful people. The idea of religion is not melicious, it is the extremists that are able to find reasons behind violence in their religions that allow themselves to lower the opinion of other people against their religion, not the religion itself.
The christian god exists

there is no round four as con posited, so i will just point out some ideas. Jesus was known from non christian historical sources to have existed. they noted that he died at the hands of Pilot. "There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically""three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish gistorian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic."https://en.wikipedia.org...'Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD'Amy-Jill Levine; Dale C. Allison Jr.; John Dominic Crossan (16 October 2006). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. p. 4.ISBN 0-691-00992-9.his apostles were willing to die for their beliefs, which has historical proofs, while people by far are known to wouldn't be willing to die for a scam. putative miracles occur to followers of the christian God, while the same sort of occurrences have not been shown to occur to atheists. people experience Jesus in near death experiences, while they by far do not experience other religoius figures.