BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School Uniform

Good morning my fine opponent and thank you for this wonderful debate. I will start off with a small overview of my points, and then leave it to you for the next round. The most obvious point against uniforms is that they restrict self-expression. We live in a dynamic society, full of unique characters that make our world a spontaneous one. Cutting that off at a young age only stifles creativity and encourages conformity. We want to encourage our children to be expressive and to think outside the box. Forcing them to wear ugly gray sweater vests and starched white shirts is not the way to do that. The gender-specific uniform guidelines often reinforce the gender binary in the school environment. The separation between females and males will only increase. If uniforms were all-encompassing and non-gender specific, this problem would not exist. However, uniforms are not all-encompassing. There are limited choices for males and limited choices for females. Though females can wear uniform pants, men are not allowed to wear uniform jumpers. Conflict would arise if a male attempted to wear the specified 'female' attire. This poses problems to LGBT progress in school environments... Where did we get the idea that bullying and stereotypes would magically disappear if we implemented a strict uniform? People will not stop bullying each other based on appearance, which manifests itself in ways besides clothing. If we convince ourselves that placing limits on clothing choices will eliminate school bullying, we are kidding ourselves. Bullying occurs whether students wear uniforms or not. The root cause of bullying should be addressed. Teens should be able to develop self-expression and their personal identity. Instead, they might resort to unconventional piercings and tattoos... School uniforms encourage followers not leaders. The practice discourages independent thinkers. This follower mentality could extend into adulthood... The push for students to wear uniforms to improve behavior lacks validity and seems ill-advised for a democratic public school system. Today's school uniforms seem more a punitive measure meant to deny students their right to freedom of expression and individuality. Public schools can still have dress codes without resorting to mandatory uniforms. There are much better goals to address safety and overall school climate. Thank you and I look forward to your next round.
Making awareness about untouchables is more effective than making laws to protect them

Your argument supports neither of the sides.... And secondly, Laws can never cause awareness in people. Some or other way, Laws bound people to do a particular task. By making Laws we can just force or just make people to protect the untouchai. But Educating or awaring people about the happenings, we could make a great change in their lives and could also change people's mind set. Your argument seems to be neutral.
Making awareness about untouchables is more effective than making laws to protect them

I agree that laws protect them.... But we can't work without our hands. Similarly, laws could do nothing without people, and people would make use of laws only if they are aware of the happenings in the society. Awareness can be created through films, songs, bhajans , talks and discussions. The evil effect of the practice gets highlighted through these medium and people work on it. In fact, it would be more effective if we start right from the beginning, by informing the kids " We Are Equal " and removing caste discrimination from the minds of new generations.
Making awareness about untouchables is more effective than making laws to protect them

You say that by changing the mind set is more important. However, most people are already aware. The problem is people need to follow laws. They know the problem about untouchability. The problem is doing, not knowing. Now, onto my case. Yes, I agree that people should be aware of this issue. However, most people are already aware. That is basically reason we are having this debate, because we both know the issue about untouchables. If a person knows about this issue, what can they do? They would do their best to solve it, but ultimately, they can't make a difference. There will still continue to be discrimination. On the other hand, if there are more laws to protect the untouchables, not only will people be even MORE aware of them, but there will be action taken. When people are aware, then they will just know about the untouchables. When we pass laws, there will be action taken, and slowly, the problem will decrease. According to Joshi Barbara R. , author of Untouchable! : Voices of the Dalit Liberation Movement (Women in the Third World) , "the resources available to Untouchables who seek change are severely limited. Only 20% of rural Untouchable males are literate, compared to 34% of other villagers. Nationwide, 52 % of all "Scheduled Caste" (Untouchable) workers are landless agricultural laborers, compared to 26% of all workers from other castes. 1981 figures are not yet available but may show further deterioration. Although wages of agricultural laborers rose by 127% between 1965 and 1975, inflation for items purchased by villagers rose an average of 157%. Not surprisingly, the latest official Rural Labour Enquiry showed 71% of all Untouchable agricultural laborers were in debt, most to village moneylenders, shopkeepers, and landlords [Ministry of Labour, 1978]. " The untouchables have incredibly low resources, and we agree that they need help. When we tried to make laws to protect then, it worked. According to Amit, a Dalit, there are now laws protecting Dalits and affirmative action programmes. And Dalits have worked hard to increase their political power - several states have even elected Dalit chief ministers. This was just a small example of what laws could do to protect the untouchables. Imagine if there were huge laws protecting the untouchables. The problem would decrease until the discrimination fades completely. Therefore, I urge you to vote the negative side of this debate.
Making awareness about untouchables is more effective than making laws to protect them

.. . I won't consider your argument. So, No rebuttal in this round. In my opinion, creating awareness in the society about the untouchables will have a bigger impact on their lives as only by changing the mind set of the people we can hope to bring difference in their lives. Laws are already existing but they will become successful only when people will follow them , not because of any fear of punishment but by their own will. We can bring positive change in this direction only by breaking the stereotype and taboos attached to the untouchables and this could be achieved only by making people aware and educating them about this evil practice of untouchability.
Making awareness about untouchables is more effective than making laws to protect them

Yes, I agree that people should be aware of this issue. However, most people are already aware. That is basically reason we are having this debate, because we both know the issue about untouchables. If a person knows about this issue, what can they do? They would do their best to solve it, but ultimately, they can't make a difference. There will still continue to be discrimination. On the other hand, if there are more laws to protect the untouchables, not only will people be even MORE aware of them, but there will be action taken. When people are aware, then they will just know about the untouchables. When we pass laws, there will be action taken, and slowly, the problem will decrease. According to Joshi Barbara R., author of Untouchable!: Voices of the Dalit Liberation Movement (Women in the Third World) , "the resources available to Untouchables who seek change are severely limited. Only 20% of rural Untouchable males are literate, compared to 34% of other villagers. Nationwide, 52 % of all "Scheduled Caste" (Untouchable) workers are landless agricultural laborers, compared to 26% of all workers from other castes. 1981 figures are not yet available but may show further deterioration. Although wages of agricultural laborers rose by 127% between 1965 and 1975, inflation for items purchased by villagers rose an average of 157%. Not surprisingly, the latest official Rural Labour Enquiry showed 71% of all Untouchable agricultural laborers were in debt, most to village moneylenders, shopkeepers, and landlords [Ministry of Labour, 1978]." The untouchables have incredibly low resources, and we agree that they need help. When we tried to make laws to protect then, it worked. According to Amit, a Dalit, there are now laws protecting Dalits and affirmative action programmes. And Dalits have worked hard to increase their political power - several states have even elected Dalit chief ministers. This was just a small example of what laws could do to protect the untouchables. Imagine if there were huge laws protecting the untouchables. The problem would decrease until the discrimination fades completely. Therefore, I urge you to vote the negative side of this debate.
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Seeing that you have a rich source of information I can easily rebut the case. To address you examples that humans are different than dinosaurs. Not to mention the fact that during the dinosaurs time there was just 1 continent. So to end this debate my case has won because I have easily shown that humans harmful activity have increased Global Warming, you're entire case is built upon the facts that if the dinosaurs lived through it we can. Well that was a 165 million years ago buddy, Earth has changed. For these reasons this is why Pro has won this debate.
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Thank you for your reminder that I have not given a single evidence that goes against your case. To fight against a popular belief, the odds have been against me from the beginning. You have certainly won if this was a popularity contest. What I want to say in my previous argument was that you have not put matters into perspective. Here are my facts which I hope can put matters into perspective: A)Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future B) CO2 is not the only driver to climate change; atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. C) The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere " the primary driver of recent climate change " has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. D) Solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. E) I hope you can agree that the Sun is an independent system of the Earth. Therefore, whatever we do on earth do not affect the sun's activities. My Analysis of the situation: [A] means that the earth is capable of sustaining life and handling CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have today. [B] & [C] support the CO2 level is 10 times more than now prior to the dinosaurs, which roughly supports [A] [D] supports that it is the combined effect of sun and CO2 that contributes to the climate change. You can see that even if we increase our current output, it would take a long time to create CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have now. Even at that level, earth can sustain life like dinosaurs. Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate change in the time scale of a 100 year, but to put in into perspective, over the time scale that date back to the beginning of life, human contributed CO2 level doesn"t affect life all that much. The sun would probably be a greater contributing factor than us human. Of course, with that said, even if we are not the major contributing factor, it is always our responsibilities to do less harm to others and to the nature" even though the sun would have killed us anyway in the end.
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports. As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS. My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there. Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent. So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether "human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.
Bullies should be taken to guidance

My adversary, in affirming the resolution, has the entirety of the BOP [1]. However, he has provided no reasoning defending this resolution, but has merely made an incoherent remark in his opening and only round, and therefore I have nothing to refute. He also hasn't defined his terms. I will do so for him: "guidance" is hereby defined as an Oreo cookie. Therefore, the resolution can otherwise be read as: Bullies should be taken to an Oreo CookieNow, why would we want to do that? The implication is that we would physically take bullies to a cookie which is, first and foremost, impossible, but also undeserved. Why should someone be rewarded for doing wrong? Now, if I were to provide a dictionary defense for guidance, we would come up with something like this: "help or advice that tells you what to do : the act or process of guiding someone or something. " [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]However, Pro still hasn't defended this. Bullies, in many cases, ought to be incarcerated or otherwise punished for their actions. He has provided absolutely no reasons as to why we should simply "take them to guidance," which in this context isn't even semantically correct.
Market Socialism

I want to point explain to anyone observing this debate that the reason my opponent skipped the last round is because he accidentally made his case during round one, which was intended to be an acceptance round. This way, we have both had one turn to make our case before the end of turn 2. ECONOMICS We both have made arguments that a market socialist system will or will not improve the economy. However, my opponent's evidence was directed against state socialism, not the form of market socialism which I proposed. Again, I want to make it clear that my plan is NOT a government takeover of the economy - in involves worker cooperatives. On the other hand, I have cited evidence comparing capitalist firms and cooperative firms, and it seems to be that cooperative firms are better economically. Here are some example of cooperatives that succeeded -The plywood industry in the Pacific Northwest. Although the cooperatives have declined, when they were existent, they functioned as democratic management and increased employment. [8] -Mon dragon. This cooperative network in the Basque region appeared to be resilient during recession elsewhere in Spain. [5] -Growth in the Yugoslavian economy between 1950 and 1975 was due largely to works self-management, and the standard of living was greatly increased. [5] -Cooperatives in Argentina. Here, many companies that failed in the capitalist market were able to recover when they were reorganized as cooperatives. [9] ETHICS A multitude of abuses have been committed by companies. A Human Rights Watch publication reports conditions involving violence, intimidation, child labor, and other atrocities involving businesses that trade internationally. [10] Even in the US, "Employers have made employees work in conditions that are degrading or life threatening, for example, in US meat and poultry processing plants." In the third world, corporations have violated human rights in the name of profit. [11] Some example are: -The oil spill in Nigeria,for which Shell failed to take responsibility -Contamination of water in Latin America by a Canadian mining company -Efforts to take over land that could displace over 20,000 by a Korean steel company These are the downsides of Neoliberal trade. Evil corporations must be eliminated from the market. While these companies appear not to care about the well-being of people in poor countries, if the the third world saw an increase in the number of cooperatives in its economy, poverty would likely be further reduced and development would improve. [12] There appears to be no good reason not to create a more democratic economy. My opponent has yet to identify any downsides. NEW SOURCES 8. http://papers.ssrn.com... 9. Worker-Recovered Enterprises as Workers' Cooperatives - Vieta and Ruggeri 10. http://www.hrw.org... 11. http://www.globalexchange.org... 12. Co-operatives" role to fight poverty in developing countries