BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

A few weeks ago you told me you would like to debate this with me again so I figured I should challenge you to this debate again. Good luck. In this debate I will be arguing that Feminism is not helping us reach equality in 1st world countries and it is my opponents job to prove me wrong. Before I go any further I have one request and that is that you read everything I have to say and honestly consider it. I want everyone who watches and participates in this debate to leave with a better understanding of the topic and how the world works. The burden of proof is shared, so pro has to prove with evidence that Feminism is helping us reach equality in 1st world countries. The first round is for accepting the debate. The second round is for opening statements and new arguments. No rebuttals The third round will be rebuttals with new arguments still allowed The fourth round is for final rebuttals and a closing statement/speech Rules: 1. Stick to the resolution. 2. Be open minded. 3. If you're going to debate this with me please be willing to take it seriously and respond. 4.
Educators should not strive for objectivity.

I regret that mrmazoo did forfeit his round. However, i also have the impression that most is said already. I'll just make use of my last round to point at my main statements: Objectivity as a goal doesn't make personal input impossible. Objectivity as a goal helps in creating borders on what is acceptable as a way of inserting personal views. Subjectivity doesn't resolve added value of the kind we couldn't have when striving for objectivity. My arguments for these statements were made in the previous rounds, which you should have read by now. ;) Kind regards, Shorack
My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

My opponent's plan only mentions two races, blacks and whites. However, what is he going to do with Asians, Native Americans, Latinos, and other races? Is he just going to not admit them? What of mulattos and other mixed-race individuals? This requires clarification. "Socioeconomic standards and qualifications" is also rather vague. How significant is it? Now, here we have a hypothetical scenario: two students apply to the university. Both students are almost equal in family socioeconomic status and intelligence, making similar grades and scoring similar SAT and ACT scores. Their only discernable difference is their race. This seems to be the only scenario in which my opponent's plan takes effect. Under my system, each student would have an equal chance of making it into the college, which is entirely fair. Under my opponent's plan, the black one would be admitted immediately, without the white one getting a fair shot. This hardly seems like the fairness we're striving for. My opponent's plan's ultimate fault is that it looks not at the individuals, but groups people by race. Why should one individual suffer or be rewarded just because the rest of his race is doing better or worse off than others? An individual is not a race. Racial inequality may seem okay, but it should not ever come at the expense of equality between individuals. If the two applicants are equal in almost all respects, than this supposed disparity between races obviously hasn't made an impact on them; why does the rest of the world affect this? Now, to detail the scenario more: the black candidate is the son of a Kenyan immigrant. His father was relatively wealthy in Kenya, and opened up a successful business here in the states. The white candidate is the son of a Polish immigrant. His father was of roughly the same status as the Kenyan, and joined a business in the states and helped it grow. Today, they are equally successful, as are their sons. With all of the equality, why should we make any distinction based on the color of their skin? With equality, from where does one get to earn preferential treatment? With that, I leave the floor to TheAtheistAllegiance. Good luck!
My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

Thanks for the debate challenge, Mongeese. It should be pretty interesting. I agree with the terms of the debate, so I'll skip right to my plan for Affirmative Action (AA). == Con's AA Plan == For simplicity and historical context, I'll be referring solely to blacks as the 'minority' race, and whites as the 'majority' race. First of all, it's widely agreed that AA should be focused upon *fairness* in the college admissions process, but that's precisely why it cannot be colorblind. Due to the historical and contemporary limitations that blacks bear in terms of societal and economic opportunity, a gap among income/poverty has formed along racial lines -- blacks are significantly poorer than whites, which isn't fair. The overall goal of AA in my program is to remedy this gap by diminishing these racial inequalities. Although my college acceptance standards are based primarily on socioeconomic standards and qualifications, race is accounted for when making the decision of whom to accept -- if these two factors are marginal or insignificant. This means that rich blacks will not be advantaged over poor whites, but instead, blacks will receive preferential treatment when socioeconomic circumstances and qualifications are relatively similar. This works toward accomplishing the goal of racial equality and opportunity, which is a beacon of fairness.
My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

My opponent, TheAtheistAllegiance, has vaguely outlined an affirmative action policy that he would prefer in this thread: http://www.debate.org... Simply put, I would like to debate him over it. The hypothetical situation is this: we are both the admission policy writers for two prestigious universities. Their names, history, geographical location, etc. should not be relevant to this debate. In Round 1, this round, I will write my affirmative action policy, and so will TheAtheistAllegiance. I expect his policy to resemble the opinions that he expressed in the above cited thread. In Rounds 2 through 4, we shall debate over how good the policies are, with the ultimate goal being fairness, although what standards we use for fairness what factors we decide to include will be up for debate, as is to be expected. Potential points to bring up would be hypothetical scenarios involving hypothetical applicants and the like. As far as the burden of proof goes, we each have an equal and opposite burden of proof, I to affirm and my opponent to negate the resolution. Definitions should be fairly obvious, and are within the context of the above cited thread. In accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the rules and terms described above, and does not consider them to be abusive in any way. If he does consider them to be abusive, he ought not accept this debate, and should instead use the comments to haggle for new rules and terms, with an explanation why. My affirmative action plan: The matters of race, gender, etc. are to be considered irrelevant to any admission considerations. To try for a lack of discrimination, names and races will not even be provided by the staff in charge of approving applicants However, a student's family's income and standard of living will have a slight effect on admissions. If a promising individual comes from a low-income family (of around $50,000 or less) and comes within mere points of being accepted into the college instead of denied, he or she shall be accepted, unless the potentially replaced student comes from a family with an income very close to the income of the previous individual (with a point range proportional to the difference in income). I expect my opponent's plan to be about as brief/elaborate as mine. Good luck, TheAtheistAllegiance!
Subjective Morality (Moral Relativism) ought to be encoraged over Objective Morality (Moral Realism)

What do you mean by acceptance? Sorry this is my first debate and I'm not completely acquainted with the structure of this debate. I also have a number of questions which i would like to be answered: - Can religion be used as an argument, if so, would we stray off to whether religion is true or not or can i use it as an example? - If I do not believe in my position is that fine? - Can i wish to exit at any point during the argument? Thank you.
Subjective Morality (Moral Relativism) ought to be encoraged over Objective Morality (Moral Realism)

I will be arguing that subjective morality should be preferred to objective morality, for reasons to be discussed in my arguments. My opponent will argue for moral objectivity/moral realism. (Moral realism falls under moral objectivity.)Subjective morality/Moral Relativism is defined as: Moral codes and laws can not be true of false from an objective viewpoint, but only from an individuals subjective viewpoint. https://en.wikipedia.org...Objective Morality/Moral Realism is defined as: Ethical sentences and laws are objectively true or false, and that they are applied objectively to features independent of subjective opinion.https://en.wikipedia.org...Rules for the debate:No trollingFirst round is acceptance ONLYDo not stray off topicNo adhominen attacksIf you are confused, than please ask for clarification in the acceptance round, BUT DO NOT post an argument the first round.Thank you, and happy debating.
It is likely that aliens have visited earth

I cannot give you definitive proof that the government is keeping aliens a secret from the public, but I do have reasons for believing this. Notice how the very idea of aliens on earth is very taboo. This is caused by the media declaring anyone who believes in aliens in this way as a crazy conspiracy theorist. Look at the way people act for evidence of this. It is very logical to think that if the government wanted to keep something secret, they would make the very idea of that secret taboo. Other than this, I make an appeal to credibility by providing quotes from credible people who hold the same view. Here are some quotes from the articles I provided in the first round post. "He [Gordon Cooper] held claim until his death that the U.S. government is indeed covering up information about UFOs. He gave the example of President Harry Truman who said on April 4, 1950, "I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on Earth." He also pointed out that there were hundreds of reports made by his fellow pilots, many coming from military jet pilots sent to respond to radar or visual sightings from the ground.[12] In his memoirs, Cooper wrote he had seen other unexplained aircraft several times during his career, and also said hundreds of similar reports had been made. He further claimed these sightings had been "swept under the rug" by the U.S. government.[7] Throughout his later life Cooper expressed repeatedly in interviews he had seen UFOs and described his recollections for the documentary Out of the Blue.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org... References made in this article are here 7) space.com, Gordon Cooper Touts New Book Leap of Faith, 30 July 2000, retrieved 20 January 2008 12) SPACE.com - Gordon Cooper Touts New Book Leap of Faith at the Wayback Machine (archived July 27, 2010) Read this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "Charles Halt, Former Air Force Colonel, Accuses U.S. Of UFO Cover-Up" Here is a link which shows many quotes of former government employees, such as "Russian Air Force, Space Communications Center, General Vasily Alexeyev," "Apollo 14 Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, Ph.D. (Aeronautics, MIT, sixth man to walk on moon)," "US Air Force, Intelligence Operative, Master Sergeant Dan Morris," and "US Army, Colonel Thomas E. Bearden," among others. http://www.wanttoknow.info... The list of people who believe in a UFO cover up included men who have walked on the moon, US army colonels, and Air Force Intelligence operators, and many others. You must be intelligent to hold these types of jobs in the government. These are credible people. That's my evidence.
It is likely that aliens have visited earth

I have not used Wikipedia for all of my sources, but take a look at the Wikipedia pages I did use. They are heavily cited, as are most Wikipedia pages. Scrutinize their sources in order to see whether or not the Wiki articles have any credibility. I have noticed that the Wiki pages that I have used are in agreement with most other websites that speak of the same events, and I chose to use those Wiki pages because they provide a nice summary to the reader who is not familiar with UFO sightings. (You could also choose to find alternative websites of the sightings which I have spoken of) As you have not delivered any other rebuttals to my arguments, I have nothing else to say.
4000 Elo debate: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize

Whiteflame will most likely be accepting the challenge and starting the debate on the weekend so be sure to check it out then.Resolved: Adolf Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize after World War 2 - assuming that he survived and did not commit suicide.Rules1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic7. The burden of proof is shared8. First round is for acceptance only9. You cannot contest with definitions, burdens or rules10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss Definitions Adolf Hitler: A German political leader of the twentieth century, born in Austria. Hitler led the Nazi party, and began to rule Germany in 1933 as a fascist. Deserved: Justly or rightly should have receivedNobel Peace Prize: One of six annual prizes that are awarded to people for important work in the field of keeping peace. StructureR1: Acceptance R2: Arguments (no rebuttals)R3: Rebuttals to R2R4: Rebuttal to R3 (defense)
This house would abolish school runs

Pro's rebuttal leads me to take all his points into one general answer. But, I have to summarize his points and take it as a whole on my final point. "Rebuttal 1: Strictly enforcing laws to prevent problems of school run" Pro claimed that this is unrealistic, thus, it cannot protect child from school run cases. "Rebuttal 2: Placing traffic enforcers in pedestrian lane" Pro had pointed out that this is already done, still, is not effective. "Rebuttal 3: Possibility of alternatives failing" Its not more on failing, my point there is to give reason why we should retain school run or not abolish those. Summary, as part of my rebuttal, Removing school run is not a good decision, on my part, as it will minimize the protection of many children. As I had told, it is not school run that is a problem, but the people themselves. The system is good, but the people defies it. Enforcing laws obviously needs an enforcer, and from my word "strict", it means, it should be followed, or else, penalize it harder. Placing traffic enforcers in the pedestrian lane is better than traffic lights, as traffic enforcer can easily chase those who violated the laws. Giving alternatives to school run is good, but it does not mean, we should remove school run. Now, let me rebut on Pro's sub points: Sub point 1: School run is not the reason for child obesity. They have the choice whether to use cars or just walk. School run is not a factor for a person's health, though, it can affect, as said in the argument. Moreover, its not good to remove school run if the point would be that. Sub point 2: As have mentioned, school run is not the reason for those "undisciplined traditions", but those undisciplined people. To summarize, School run is still effective, and before I leave, I have to point out good reasons why school run should not be abolished: 1) School run is good for those who have far distances of their homes to the school 2) Traffic is normal, with or without school run, traffic jam and illegal parking practices would still occur 3) Not all parents would agree to abolish school run 4) Abolishing school run is to minimize the child's protection 5) School run is not the reason of child accidents, rather, the people themselves.
This house would abolish school runs

In this argument, I have construct both my stand and my argument, though to be honest, they seem to both have one thought: It is not the "school run" practice that makes the situation bad, rather, the people themselves. If the justification of abolishing "school runs" is because of many children being hit because of rush hour, or because of too much traffic, solutions can be given for that. Enforcing traffic rules in the school area is one of the solutions we can guarantee, not just enforcing, but STRICTLY enforcing it. To be more effective, make sure that the offender will be penalized. Providing traffic enforcers in the predestrial lane can help. Students MUST be guided that they SHOULD cross the street there, not in any part of the road. While the children our crossing, an officer would not allow cars to go in. It is up to the officer how he(or she) will balance it. On my stand, "school runs" is not the problem. What is needed here is discipline, because if to abolish school run, a tendency is that, kids can be abducted, as what have been said. Not all parents would agree on the "walking of students by group accompanied by an adult", for some are sensitive. Who knows, the adult himself/herself is the kidnapper. Hiring school bus is good, but we can't be assure of it. I mean, how about if the bus is full? Cycling towards school is also good (Its my attitude when we wear civilian clothes during "wash days"), but for children, not all children are good in cycling, and even when they know how to ride a bike, we cannot remove the possibility that they may fall, and sometimes, run over by cars. Even cyclist fall, dies when fall on highways, how much more of kids? In conclusion: All of the "alternatives" given to "school run" is good, but it is not enough to abolish the "school run" practice. All in all, "school run" should not be abolish, because it is not the problem.
This house would abolish school runs

Nice to meet you, too, Ike-Jin-Park. Challenge accepted ;) Ok, so, we are going to debate about "school runs". As far as what I know, "school run" is where parents drop off and pick up their child in school. In this debate, I have to cite reasons why "school run" should NOT be abolished, on my side as Con. I just ask a little definition from you, on how you will define "school run", too, so that, I know where will I take my point. :) I suggest, you put it on the comment section, so that, round 2 may begin. :) Thank you for challenging me on this debate. I also look forward for a great debate.
This house would abolish school runs

Nice to meet you MrDebitCredit0995. I would like to debate against you on this topic, if school runs should be abolished. I will be the Pro in the case which means I carry burdens of proof which in this case would be to show how school run is harmful and why that harm calls for abolition. I will define the country as any place that has controversy about banning school run or not because that would leave a room for both sides to debate. These are the rules for each round.
Guns should be available to the law-abiding public.

Since con has forfeited I shall continue. Guns should be available to the law abiding public to give them a chance against a criminal/criminals who wish to do them harm. The average 911 response time is slowing, with no signs of speedy up(1.) So with that knowledge, how can you rely on the police to protect you in a situation? 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Guns should be available to the law-abiding public.

i would like to point out to the audience that 1st round was supposed to be acceptance. I would also like to point out that the one thing that the Columbine and Aurora shooters had in common was lack of mental health. The Columbine shooters were mentally ill and so was the Aurora shooter(1). One of the purposes of the NICS is to weed out mentally ill people, although it does need work. People should have the right to own guns because people use them to defend themselves from criminals. Considering the majority of criminals will alway find ways to get a gun, taking them away from law abiding citizens will only put them in danger. As you can see in this video,(2) criminals in prison got a gun with a fairly high capacity magazine. Imagine the situation on the streets, and you see the need for the law-abiding public to own guns for self defence. 1. http://www.deseretnews.com... 2. http://www.youtube.com...
Guns should be available to the law-abiding public.

For the last round I shall simply wrap up since Con has given me nothing to go off of. There is nothing wrong with the law-abiding, mentally healthy public owning guns. Guns are amoral objects, which means they only take the personality and morals of whoever is holding it. In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns will be a threat to no one and therefore will not carry the burden on society as the one cast by guns in the hands of criminals.
Homeschooling Doesn't Require The Kids To Be Pulled Out of Public School

Thanks for the conformation. Firstly, the pro dominant problem with this method of homeschooling comes with homeschooling on a school day. Around elementary level a child is expected to attend around 6-7 hours of schooling per day, with homework then added on top of that (expected to be 30 - 60 mins per night). Do you not think then adding 2-3 hours of home tutoring on top of this would not be extremely overworking the child? Adding up to 9-10 hours per day of schooling this would allow little free time, restricting the child's ability to attend clubs and extra curricular activities. This all seems a bit much, especially at elementary level.
Homeschooling Doesn't Require The Kids To Be Pulled Out of Public School

Thanks for deciding to debate about this, I didn't think anyone would. It would actually really depend on the situation. For an elementary - middle school age child, I would want to stick to using outside classes either after school or during the weekends. I can't list a set number of hours since the classes would really vary and change throughout the year. For an older child I would want to start using the homeschooling workbooks/curriculum for everyday after school, during the holidays, but skipping the weekends. So I would say I would want to stick to about 2-3 hours per day for a highschool age child.
Homeschooling Doesn't Require The Kids To Be Pulled Out of Public School

I've actually been reading a few debates on here about homeschooling vs public school education. Honestly, I actually think that the homeschoolers have some good points; being able to hand craft their children's education sounds awesome to me. I've also read some success stories on different sites about how their kids easily get high tests scores and go on to college. The ways and methods they used to help their children get there were really creative and actually gave me a few ideas....However, I don't believe homeschooling should have to mean taking the kids out of school at all. As for posting a con side, I honestly can't think of any points I could make. Most of the homeschoolers in the stories that I've read used outside classes/activities/curriculum to teach their kids, and so the children weren't even being taught at home or by their parents. The parents were mainly there to pick curriculum or structure routines for their children, they didn't really teach.