BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

(1) Pro contradicts himself, when he says that "no student wants to attend school". However, in his previous rounds, and in this round, he argued that "gay" schools are not segregation, because the gays are "willing" to attend them. Indeed, he, in this round, writes that "segregation implies unwillingness". (2) Pro has completely ignored my argument that "gay" schools, or "gay friendly" schools are not viable, because they do "not deal with the underlying causes of gay oppression; it only deals with the symptoms." I don't have much to say, because there isn't much to say, but at the moment, due to Pro's inconsistency in his argumentation, and the fact that he has outright ignored one of my arguments, the resolution is negated.
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

The willingness is irrelevant, as no student wants to attend school. Plus, your second statement is exactly what such a school is for. And segregation implies unwillingness. Anyone can join said school if they are not harming or harassing the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/other students for their orientation if the school is willing, it is not segregation. Enrichment- you would define this as segregation? What about intervention? -it is not segregation -willingness is not relevant -rebuttal negated -note this is not to endorse LGBTQIA activity, just protect the students
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

Pro's criticism is that I "fail to realize that [his proposal] is designed to protect CHILDREN not adults." I don't really see how that is relevant towards my criticism, and as a lack of elucidation on behalf of Pro, on his criticism's relevance, I can't really deal with it. I criticised Pro's proposal on the grounds that it does not deal with the underlying causes of gay oppression; it only deals with the symptoms. Pro somewhat addresses this by arguing that "adults can generally defend themselves...children cannot". However, Pro's statement is unable to account for issues such as LGBT workplace discrimination. Pro states that as a result of his proposal, "there would be no judgment" toward gays. That is untrue. Once again, there still will be judgement toward gays, because Pro's proposal never deals with the underlying causes of gay oppression; the underlying causes of judgement or harrassment toward gays. His proposal is merely limited to segregating homosexuals in schooling from the rest of society. Pro anticipates this criticism by arguing that because gays are "willing" to go to such "gay" schools, it means that his proposal does not mean segregation. His statement is problematic because:(1) an unjustified assumptions that gays will be "willing" to go to such schools will be made.(2) he overlooks the fact that gays may be wiling to go to such schools only because such schools are set up to segregate gays from people of other sexual orientation. Consequently, none of Pro's rebuttals succeed, and the resolution is thus NEGATED.
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

Con makes a mistake-he fails to realize that this is designed to protect CHILDREN not adults. Consider the case of a university student who had a same-sex relationship ( not going into details) and was unknowingly filmed and broadcasted to several watchers. This drove him to suicide. Thid is to protect students,not adults or the choices they make. This doesn't mean segregation, as it would be willing. Gay prisoners get protection from this, and these students are not criminals. They deserve at least as much protection as the guilty. So effectively these are to protect students from bullies. Adults can generally defend themselves. Children cannot. This makes the last argument effectively void. To recap-this is to protect students and there would be no judgement, and no Christian will let someone be oppressed. And such were some of you- 1st Corinthians chapter 6.
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

Thanks, Pro.-------------------------------------------------------The resolution of this debate is that: "Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement". Pro clarifies what he means by this in his first round: "A gay student should be in a gay or gay friendly school to avoid bullying or harrassment". Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, because he is advocating for a change in the status-quo; he is advocating for the development of "gay" schools or "gay friendly" schools. Thus, in order to win this debate, I am tasked with successfully negating the arguments he gives to support his position. Note that I do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, in order to win this debate, even though it may be beneficial.--Pro's Case--Pro's justification for "gay" schools, or "gay friendly" schools essentially resolves around gay students having a "better life"; one with "no oppression", and that it ["gay" schools/"gay friendly" schools] "is best for straight-gay equality or gay freedom". His proposal is flawed for a simple reason, which I shall discuss quickly. Pro's proposal only deals with the symptoms of gay oppression, whilst ignoring the underlying causes. This is because even though there may be less gay oppression at "gay" schools, or "gay friendly" schools were his proposal were to be implemented, this still does not deal with the problems relating to gays in regard to society at large. With his proposal, a significant proportion of society will nevertheless remain hostile toward gays, because his proposal does not deal with underlying issues revolving to gays within society.--Conclusion--The resolution is negated.
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

Gays are often insulted or bullied by straight students simply because they are gay. One in 20 people may have a homosexual preference, and they are still abused. Say there is a town of 1000. That translates to about 200 gay people.My school hates gays for the most part,and a gay or gay friendly school will create a better life with less oppression. It is best for a straight-gay equality or gay freedom-note:i am bi and against gay rights and this is a willing school for gays and straights who will not judge eachother.
I believe the bible to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed

Since its the 4th round, I might as well summarize the round. The correct way to give credit is to put taken information into quotation and to provide the source.While my opponent did quote some of the things he wrote, and properly gave credit, he did not for some of his main arguments. Looking back at Speech 1, you see the argument he made to refute my omnipotence paradox. I quote Pro: If God can make a rock that he can"t move then what He created becomes more powerful than the creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature.This is what is called a category mistake to say He can make something he can"t lift. It"s like asking a bachelor what his wife"s name is? What does the color yellow taste like, color doesn"t taste, so it is not a relevant question. It"s not possible for God to make a rock so big that even he can"t lift it. If he can make it He can lift it. If he can create it, he can destroy it. God does not have any limit to His power, but everything he created has a limit. Just because He does not show His unlimited power does not mean he does not possess infinite power. Nothing God makes can be more powerful than Him, creation is never more powerful than its creator. Whatever He created is under his jurisdiction, under His control, but it can never have equality or become superior.This is not located on the source he sited and even if it was, it was not in quotes nor was it properly sited. It was located on the source I found. He stole it and claimed it as his own.Properly siting a source includes putting quotation marks and then giving link. He did not give correct link nor did he suse quotation marks.Pointing out plagiarism is not childish or wrong. Plagiarism is illegal and I am doing my best at pointing it out to the voters.
I believe the bible to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed

Plagiarized, seriously? Are you not aware of the site reference I gave, thus no plagiarism was committed. You intentionally made this to appear to be an act of plagiarism by giving a reference from a different site in which that person went to the same site I did, which is above, but you intentionally ignored it to get the audience to think something that wasn't true, and here is my site that I gave which is as I said clearly seen in the above round, http://www.letusreason.org...... This will be all that I will say this round to give you an opportunity to get your act together before we go another round, so admit your fault and let's go to the next round.
I believe the bible to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed

PLAGIARISM My opponet has plagiarised his first argument for this round from: https://answers.yahoo.com... What my opponent said: If God can make a rock that he can"t move then what He created becomes more powerful than the creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature. What Yahoo Answers said: If God can make a rock that he can"t move, then what He created becomes more powerful than the Creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature. The next part about the bachelor was also partly stolen from: http://www.nefuri.com... Check out those links. This is clearly plagiarism. Therefore, since none of these arguments truly belong to my opponent, they are not valid. And therefore, this debate is not beneficial for either debator.
I believe the bible to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed

How can you listen to gods word if god doesn't exist? First, in the bible, it says that god is omnipotent. If so, he can do anything. Can an omnipotent being create a triangle that has angles adding up to more than 180 degrees? No. Therefore, he is not omnipotent. Can he create a rock that he can not lift? If not, he can't to everything. If he can, can he lift it? No. So he isn't omnipotent. So therefore, the god described in the bible does not exist. And so we can not take solely the bible into account.
I believe the bible to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed

I believe the bible to be the sole authority from God, thus nothing else is needed for man to know who God is, and to comprehend his plan for us to live by(1), and what to expect after death for those who chose to become Christians(2), and for those who chose not (3). I will prove oral traditions of men, creeds, manuals, catechism are contrary to God's word(4), as the bible alone is all that's needed. (1) 2 Peter 1:3 (2) 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (3) Revelation 21:8 (4) Colossians 2:8
Women in Combat

Thank you for your response RC1 You talk about your uncle having something to fight for and how this was good for him. In fact this is good for all soldiers. No soldier goes into war for no reason, they all have something to fight for. For most this is their country but for many like you said it is their family. However you fail to tell how this relates to men and women in combat. Every soldier already has something to fight for, your contention fails to prove how this would make more sense if women were allowed in combat. Many soldiers already feel a bond with their fellow soldiers, they are fighting for them and putting women in combat could only make these relationships more uncomfortable and more awkward. As I said before, if these men and women develop romantic relationships they could put their feelings for each other above the mission. RC2 I only have 1 thing to say to this argument. If women are as strong as men why are they not in the NFL? My source is from 2011, and it will prove that in that year going forward, women are allowed to play in the Nation Football League. If women are as big and strong as most men, why are they not playing professional football, the roughest and most strength reliant game in America? The reason for this is men and women are built differently, the average man is bigger than the average female and in a life or death situation such as combat it really does matter. RC3 Your third contention fails to prove how women are qualified for combat, you simply quoted some ex veteran who agreed with you. As their is not much to refute here, it is his personal opinion, I will choose not to drag this out. Instead I will extend my argument that there are more productive places in the military that women can go and be equally as beneficial to America as combat. http://weeklyworldnews.com... Also I do not have access to your source that is a google doc.
Women in Combat

You have good points, and I am sorry for not responding earlier. But, here are my points:C1- Relationships with other comrades can be a good thing. Sometimes, when a soldier is fighting alongside someone they care about, the soldier will have something to fight for and will fight strongly and not back down. My uncle, for instance... He is in the National Guard and, a few years back, had to go to Afghan. Though I do not know if he had to fight, but, he had the possibility. My uncle had something to come back to, to fight for if he ever got into a fight:1) He had a wife2) He had a young daughter3) He had a niece and nephew4) He had a father5) He had two sistersSince my uncle had something to come back to, he had a reason to fight. That is the same with most soldiers. If the soldier, either a man or woman, has something to fight for, they will fight strongly. As well, it builds trust in the unit for each other. Meaning that the unit soldiers will trust one another more strongly. http://www.apd.army.mil...C2- Height doesn't matter in combat, and women are as strong as men.Height doesn't matter in combat, but strength does. Strength doesn't depend on the gender nor average size of the gender or person. Strength depends on the person alone. Women are qualified to be in combat, some more than others. Some women are able to carry tons of weight on their back and shoulders. I, for instance, am able to carry my six year old sister on my back. I can also carry a backpack with a chrome book, nine hundred page book, notebooks, and a few other school supplies on one shoulder (Because of my backpack being a one strap.). http://sistersinarms.ca...C3- Women are qualified for combat. Women are able to fight and are able to fire lethal weapons and such. A retired air force personnel, Brig Gen. Wilma Vaught, had this to say: “Women have always fought and died in American wars. They’ve lead men in battle, been POWs, fired lethal weapons, and operated our most sophisticated systems. They fly combat aircraft and serve on combat ships. Women meet the physical and mental standards, technically proficient, and are highly trained war leaders! In today’s all-volunteer force, women have accepted the challenges, responsibilities, and dangers of military service, just as men have. With today’s battlefield and war on terror, there are no front lines, and every unit, regardless of size or mission, has the potential to engage the enemy.” Some women, as well, want to go into combat. I know I do... But, anyway, besides my own opinion... There are women who want to go into combat.https://docs.google.com...http://sistersinarms.ca...
Women in Combat

Before I begin I would like to clarify that I am opposed to women in positions where they are fighting against enemy forces, I do not oppose their involvement in other aspects of the military. C1: Relationships between men and women There are 2 problems that this brings up. The first is sometimes, forces are kept in close quarters where they are forced to sleep with each other and shower with each other. Not only would this make the women feel exposed but it may give men an invitation to rape them or feel generally uncomfortable around them. Both parties would be harmed and this problem is unavoidable in the unpredictable environment that is combat. The second piece of this problem is men and women could develop a relationship with each other. In war, the ideology is you accomplish the mission first, then you look out for your fellow soldiers, then you look out for yourself. Now if men and women in combat develop a relationship with each other, they may look out for each other over the mission or other soldiers. This could easily be the reason that soldiers die and it is also an unavoidable issue. C2: On average, men are bigger and more fit for combat than women. Before you say, "Some women are strong and big and can handle combat. " Let's take a look at the statistics of the average size of a male versus a female. The average size of a male is 5 feet 9 inches while a female averages 5 feet 3 inches. The average man is 6 feet taller than the average woman. Now in combat where you are forced to carry hundreds of pounds of equipment, the bigger men are going to be more able to carry more and feel less strain than the women. If the men are feeling less strain then they will be able to accomplish more and feel less pressure in combat. C3: Women are better suited in other areas of the military. The military is not a small organization with few positions to choose. There are so many other options that women could choose to serve their country over combat. My source will show that combat is not a position that is having a shortage of positions in the military. Women can choose to go into engineering or military intelligence instead of combat where they will not perform as well. I await your contentions. . http://work.chron.com... . http://pediatrics.about.com... . http://pediatrics.about.com...
Women in Combat

I am challenging Sniper1576 to a debate about allowing women in combat. I was scrolling through debates in the voting period and I saw this one as interesting. I do not believe Con did a good job in that debate so I would like to have this debate with Sniper. First round is acceptance only. Second round is contentions ONLY. Final round is rebuttals to contentions made in round 2, you may not refute points I have made in round 3. No new contentions can be made in the final round. Good luck!
The United Kingdom should keep it's monarchy.

I'm guessing that you are on holiday, or for whatever reason you were not able to make your argument in time. I don't mind.A lot of my friends (and acquaintances) who are American seem to think that the monarchy have a kind of entertainment value. Americans think that celebrities are the ultimate entertainment, and the Royal Family is full of ultimate celebrities. I don't mean 'funny' entertainment (I do though, see right), http://www.youtube.com... what I do mean is that when something happens that involves the Royal Family, the media will then report on that (how many times have you seen William and Kate?), rather than the usual nonsense about the relationships of sportsmen, or the current criminal status of pop stars.Monarchies are not out of date. When I talk about the subject with other people, they will always tell me this. Tell me then, why 43 countries still have a monarch as head of state? On the Human Development list, the United States ranks third, below two constitutional monarchies (Norway and Australia). In the top 20 on that list, nine are constitutional monarchies. On the IDHI (which ranks governments) the United States ranks 16th, behind 7 monarchies (Norway, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada and Belgium). Monarchies, as a type of government, are certainly not out of date, unless corruption and absolute power is the new, modern thing.The republican movement that wants the monarchy out in the UK is a minority. It is about as popular as the group of people who believe that the US should leave the United Nations. I can guarantee you that the British people will never want the monarchy out, and while it is still in place, that will never change.
The United Kingdom should keep it's monarchy.

Monarchs do have power in the UK, not only do they pass laws, they can seize their lands, meaning parliament will have no land or profit. The queen simply doesn't want too much power, which keeps her reign a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. And opinion polls of the monarchy have never showed that the British population is against the monarchy, so it is unlikely that they will stop caring about them.Don't forget if a Prime Minister tries to take away all powers from the Royal Family, the ruling monarch is can have him arrested for high treason. They are a lot more powerful than people seem to think.As for your injustice point, being a monarch is a job that involves specific attributes, just like any job. The skills required for the monarchy (keeping national pride, stopping the bad PM's, etc.) are easily passed down from father to son. We all have knowledge that we can thank our parents for. Also, with that logic, how come people can earn millions just because they can sing well, or they can kick a football around easily. Some jobs are simply worth more than others.Also, the reason that the monarchy isn't similar to sexism and racism is that the monarchy doesn't discriminate against anyone.I have already mentioned that the other alternative to a monarch is a president, and a president would come with a republic. A man by the name of Oliver Cromwell has already tried to make a republic in Great Britain when he refused the limited powers that comes with being king. The republic lost support after 3 years. A king has limited powers set to him by parliament, whereas a president has unlimited powers. In the book 1984 by George Orwell, the UK is a republic, and I think we all know what the world, not just the UK, is like in that book.What is the point of risking that, or a leader that only really cares for the people that agree with him? That is why I support the monarchy.
The United Kingdom should keep it's monarchy.

Lets-a-go. To start, I just want to say that I believe the idea of Monarchy is a imbecilic, futile and overrated. It is the epitome of inequality. The monarchy is the line of reign a group of royalty have. The monarchs have NO power in Britain. Yes, they do technically pass laws, but a law has NEVER been denied by a King or a Queen of this age! They are figureheads. And figureheads get worn and people eventually stop caring about them. What really counts is the body, or the parliament in this case (Go UKIP!). Monarchs are born into their reign. From birth, they are automatically rich and have the ability to purchase anything to their desire. As a teen Brit, I think that is downright outrageous! Why should someone born to a specific family get more advantages than working families like mine? See where I am going? How is the above any different to Sexism? Racism? All forms of inequality? You can not deny that the new Prince George has done NOTHING to earn his multimillion funds that he will undoubtedly claim in the future. This is why Britain should banish the Royalty; they serve our country no justice.