BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
race consideration for collage

Its a good thing that con and I agree that knowing the personality and grades, among other things, is good for a student, and that stopping racism in campus is positive. Con said in his argument that a certain race does not make a person better or worse. I would like to highlight the fact that I am not saying that a race makes a person better or worse. In fact, my opinion on races is that we are all created by one God equal. Now, the opposition asked why does the school administration need to know a students race to help them succeed. He also said that they can collect this information after the student is enrolled. For the first part I will provide an example: A student enrolls who belongs to a race known for its good music skills. The school administration obtains the knowledge about his or her race. Now the school administration can advise the student to join music clubs wich will increase his grade and better the music club. Knowing the racial composition of the population of a school before classes start helps the administration to prepare its facilities, how to deal with students and others.
race consideration for collage

Con (the opposition) said that when an individual applies for college he or she is required to identify his or her race. This is actually a good thing. Let me elaborate: Race is not the only thing that the college needs to know about a student enrolling. There is personality, skills and capabilities, grades and others. This is to know the students better so they can put them in situations that increase their potential for success and productivity not only for themselves, but also for the good of everyone around them. Also, the population of a college is not only one race. There are diverse races that make up the population of a college. Knowing the number of races and how many students belong to those races help the school prevent discrimination among students.
Atheism Exists Because Theism Raised The Question First.

Serious believers are generally eager to supply you with a catalog of their dearest convictions. They do not just hold positions, they declare them. It is of great importance to them that you know their views. And they are usually presented in a way meant to convince you of their truth, as if your own are variant, if not plainly false. Notice that their beliefs look in two directions at once: every one of them is perfectly matched with a corresponding unbelief. They are as concerned with what they do not believe as with what they do. Belief, in other words, is always belief against.Because beliefs are so well matched with their opposites, they not only focus on the resistance of others, they are dependent on it. When that opposition fades so does the passion with which one’s own belief is held. To be an atheist you will need to find just the right theist to face off against. How could one deny the existence of God unless someone supplies a God that can be denied? The odd consequence of this is that one cannot be a believer without simultaneously being an unbeliever. Believing is an inherently self-contradictory act.For this reason, belief can flourish only in situations of collision. And when belief flags, the only way to reanimate it is to provoke hostility in an other. It is a little like the fundamental insight of AA that alcoholics do not drink because circumstances caused it, but cause circumstances that provide an excuse to drink. Belief is a kind of narcotic. It is a state of being inebriated with certainty and reassured by a supporting company of friends—but possible only when an outward excuse can be created. Panslavism, to cite a typical belief system, has been wonderfully strengthened by the military intervention of Americans and western Europeans into the conflict over Kosovo—an issueSerbia worked hard to initiate. There is no thrill for patriots without a dangerous enemy to struggle against. If one doesn’t exist, make one. Iraq, for example?Notice that no mention has been made of religion. Contrary to popular thinking, religion has very little to do with belief. One could be a believer (a Marxist, a white supremacist, say) without being religious. One could be religious (see Buddhism) without being a believer.http://articles.exchristian.net...
Matt Ryan is a better quarterback than Dak Prescott

With one game to go in Week 9, Dak Prescott has the best Total QBR of the week. It's the second time this season that the Cowboys rookie posted the top Total QBR of the week. ESPN Stats & Information takes a look at the best and worst QB performances from Week 9 in terms of ESPN's Total Quarterback Rating (QBR). Top 3 Dak Prescott: 96.4 Total QBR Dak Prescott had a 96.4 Total QBR against the Browns on Sunday. ESPN Stats & Information Prescott"s magical rookie season continued on Saturday as he posted a 96.4 Total QBR (out of 100) in Dallas" 35-10 victory over the Browns. Not only was that Prescott"s seventh consecutive win, the third-longest win streak for a rookie QB since the 1970 merger, but it was his NFL-leading seventh straight game with a QBR above 70. Prescott now has a 83.6 Total QBR for the season, which ranks second behind Tom Brady and is the highest for a player through his first eight career starts since 2006. Getting back to Sunday"s win, Prescott completed 21 of 27 passes for 247 yards and three touchdowns. He also had a clean sheet in terms of interceptions, sacks and fumbles. As a result, Prescott didn"t have one play that cost his team at least 0.5 expected points, while a season-high 42 percent of his plays gained at least positive 0.5 EPA. Because of his overall efficiency, Prescott added 8.5 points more than an average QB would have with the same number of plays, which is about three more points than any other QB in Week 9.
Matt Ryan is a better quarterback than Dak Prescott

We will be debating about who is the superior quarterback using only results from the first ten weeks of the 2016 NFL season. I will be arguing that Matt Ryan is the better quarterback, my opponent will be arguing that the Cowboy's Dak Prescott is better. I am going to define better in the following way: Better= More valuable in terms of production/the amount of points each theoretically would add to his team Good luck to whoever accepts.
Matt Ryan is a better quarterback than Dak Prescott

My opponent did not refute any of my arguments and the only argument he could bring forth was a copy and pasted article by Sam Monson from Pro Football Focus (https://www.profootballfocus.com...). He does cite this (kind of) but the fact remains that copying and pasting somebody else's argument (especially one which has no relation to what were debating, the name Matt Ryan isn't even mentioned) is no debating it is plagiarizing. Unless my opponent gives a genius refutation in his final argument, I consider this debate won.
Protection of civil liberties is more important than the protection against international terroism

The Constitution states that the government should "secure the blessings of liberty". If the government is standing over us, watching us from every angle, recording us every moment of our lives, how is it going about this? In order for people to exercise their civil freedoms, they first must have the freedom to live their lives. For example, shortly after the 9/11 attack, the government passed the Patriot Act. This was a massive boost to governmental control. However, the Patriot Act was revised, as it was too oppressive. In order for society to function, the citizens of a country must be able to trust their leaders. "But how can you trust someone, who doesn't trust you?" - Dan Bull
Church

Mighty words, cascade as flippantly as confetti and truth is the Sun of the heavens. The Son of God, etched into the minds of those who care to witness and lain in those temples by the hands of deceivers. Mind marriage nonsense and that confetti flutters still. Piety trudges in that thick blanket of words. Scattered by the hands of those who knew nothing, but proclaimed all. Easily lodged in every nook and cranny of mind fear bewilderment. Truth exceeds now and the one false god persists, all others in abeyance assured of mind etched persistence. The power of the one, lain in those sharp suited temples, lays down it's glory and those pompously begowned bankers of religion rest in the certainty of their own existence. All these colourful fluttering beguiling words, accept the plain words of proof. Book bound words all knowing, but knowing nothing. Hands deceive just as easily and minds are deceived freely. Matter not as all matter is and acceptance is free. Not mind wrought delusion pounded by that pious hammer. Life and flesh into vapour and those muons spin still in all ignorance of flesh and knowledge. Words tumble freely but are wrought into nothing, but daydreams.
Church

Where is the controversy? 1) My hands are neither idol or idle. Notwithstanding the cataclysm, beseech them awaken and their hearts not their hands will lie in the decaying broth of infinite time. 2) The limitations of vision and the fog of spirituality, the pea soup fog of spirituality. Can you see your nose in front of your face. Stoned! Hey man only the stoned see the walking dead, tripping on scriptural delusion. 3) Persistence is futile. Banging heads against the infinite wall of reality. Stones will only scatter that tenuous organic froth. The impudence of knowledge exceeds it's significance tenfold, a hundredfold. Chance knowledge and that meagre stone dropping into the infinite ocean of time and space. 4) Walk where you dare, for the dead care or believe not. Tombs are but the nonsense of conceptuality. 5) The three way acceptance of spirituality, illusion delusion and confusion. Words tumble and delight the senses of the gullible. Words spin like muons and decay in an instant ,but knowledge hangs like a sticky residue. Those gates are an illusion, a mind held delusion wrought by impudent knowledge and self wrought confusion, standing gloriously in the middle of nowhere.
Church

Here is something controversial... What would happen if we went to any other tomb on Earth, opened the doors and said "Wake Up, It Is Time!"? Every nonbeliever and their idol hands would remain a lifeless body. What would happen if we said, "How can you see what is in Heaven so clearly but you can't see what is standing directly in front of your face!"? We would be stoned mentally and spiritually by the walking dead. What would happen if we persisted even further? We would become surrounded and stoned physically! Therefore we walk past the tombs of nonbelievers and do not enter. If the dead ever find themselves trapped in a dark tomb with other nonbelievers waiting for Christ to return then forgive one another, confess to one another and the gates of Heaven will open and Christ will be revealed.
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

I am going to go NC-AC Value: Global security is achieved better by affirming. By submitting to international jurisdcition you prevent crimes against humanity. When you prevent crimes against humanity, you are protecting society from these mass atrocities. My opponent provides no bright line between value and criterion. You are indeed securing the citizens of the world by affirming. Therefore the aff beter uphold global security. Criterion: We both agree U.S. is hegemon, but my opponent's definition of hegemon seems flawled. According to dictionary.com hegemony is defined as leadership; predominance. So because i am the first to render a definition that comes from a source of hegemony for the round you must look past his invalid definition of hegemony and look to mine. Hegemonial status would actually increase by joining international jurisdcition. The U.S. is currently not well like by the international community, because other countries believe we live above human rights laws. So to increase hegemonial stauts wouls should join international jurisdiction and let other countries see we care about the citizens of the international community. Contention 1 and Contention 2: I render the lone valid definition of hegemony therefore both contentions must be looked past, because they comply to his definition not mine. Now to my case: My value, contention 1, and contention 2 all stand because my opponent attacks them with hege based attacks. As stated previously I have laready taken down anything hege stated by neg. Criterion: My criterion is protecting human rights. Since my opponent attakcs Declartion of Independence my cirterion of protecting human rights is extended across the flow. The U.S. is morally obliged to protect human rights and the can achieve this obligation by submitting to interntaional jurisdcition. What it boils down to is that we can save more lives, maximize soft power, minimze hard power, fulfill obligation to protect our citizen's rights as well as the rest of the world's inhabitants rights, increase hegemonial status, and maintain national sovereignty all by affirming. Therefore, you should affirm.
Exploiting people's superstitions for profit should be made a criminal offence

I once sat on a plane behind a timid old lady who was clearly a very nervous flier. She was sat in row 13 and I was sat in row 14 and she turned round to me and said that she believed 13 was an unlucky number and that she owed it to her grandchildren to arrive safely and that she would be be very much obliged if I would swap seats with her. I explained to her that if we swapped seats so that the bad luck was transferred from her to me and the gods decided to punish me for sitting in row 13 by making the plane plummet out of the sky in a huge ball of flames and crash nose first into the ground at five hundred miles an hour, creating a massive crater in the earth in the process, and my charred corpse was consequently smashed into a million tiny pieces and each of those tiny pieces was smashed into another million tiny pieces so that no trace of me would ever be found, her seat would follow mine very shortly afterwards. Nevertheless, I didn't want to cause the poor old dear any unnecessary anxiety so I agreed to swap seats with her. Okay, I hear you say, you very kindly put some old crackpot's mind at rest by swapping seats with her, so what? If a deluded old coffin-dodger wants to believe in ridiculous superstitions, let her, where's the harm in that? No harm at all, if it ended there, but it doesn't. All around the world, unscrupulous individuals are all too happy to cash in on weak-minded, gullible or otherwise vulnerable people. They include fortune-tellers, feng shui practitioners, soothsayers, witchdoctors, astrologists, exorcists, Shaman priests, spiritual healers and holistic medicine sellers. They all prey on people with more money than sense - the type of people that would rather believe the words of convincing con-merchants than those of the scientific community. These ruthless, heartless swindlers are raking in countless millions every year by exploiting frothing nutjobs' irrational superstitions. They must be outlawed because the people who hand their cash over to them clearly need protecting from themselves. Thank you.
Brutus and Cassius are in the wrong for assasinating Julius Caesar.

It is unfortunate that my opponent did not respond to my argument, Though it is disappointing. I looked at his profile and he was online many times during his 24 hour time, And he was responding to other debates. Anyway, It would be even more disappointing if my opponent does not answer for the third round, Because he is not fulfilling to the standards of the debate. I would appreciate it if my opponent responds against the second round article that I made.
Standardized testing should NOT be banned

Conclusion SATs damage a student's potential and future. They jump to conclusions at a young age by a single test score, causing them to shove young children into classes that are often too easy, or too hard. Once this cycle begins, the child will either fall terribly behind, or learn at the prescribed pace, no faster, causing them to have a ruined future. The test taking skills that SATs teach students are stressful and not suited for many children, and the oppurtunities for improvement at tests is limited to none. There is no flexibility, despite extenuating circumstances for some, and the stress level often causes poor scores. SAT's do not improve test scores, as numerous examples and studies have proven, and can sometimes even make them worse. They also cause a teacher to teach to the cirriculum poorly - one of the reasons for our failing education system. (Thank you, by the way, Pro). I, too, have the same sources as last time.
Standardized testing should NOT be banned

You have some good solid arguments and make a fabulous debater! 1. This may be true but it still shows the achievement most of the times 2. Your first part may be true but your second part was getting off topic with my statement. 3. That dosent make sense, because the teacher HAS to make sure that the students know what they need to know. 4. I am sorry to say this, but that's life, stress, we all have to deal with it to reach our goals. 5. You should have taken the second part from 1# and make it 5# 6. This statement dosent make any sense. Children have to be able to take a test and even though it may be stressful, it dosent matter in the long run. "Same sources as last time"
Standardized testing should NOT be banned

"Yes in the USA" Argument: 1. SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years. 2. SAT's are not expensive at all, and only cost 7$ per student. 3. SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material. 4. SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer etc. 5. SAT's show what level a student is at. 6. SAT's strengthen test taking skills for young ones. I am looking forward to your rebuttals. Resources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org... http://teaching.about.com... http://www.brighthubeducation.com...
The enlistment age for the military should be raised

They use college as a comparison to joining the military. “Teenagers have about 5 years’ worth of actual life experience”. Not practical adult life experience, which is what counts. “Would it be wise to say our college students are impulsive? ” Absolutely it would. If you sign up for college without a plan or even a major in mind (as your source has indicated), you really should sit out until you can figure it out. A major difference however is that you can leave college whenever you want (although if you are far along it is not advisable). Not so with the military, you are locked into a contract (5 or 6 years are common) and can’t get out except in very special circumstances. In college you get the major you sign up for, in the Military you MO can change without your choice. Part of the problem is everyone thinks they have to go to college. “Would it be rational and beneficial to teens if we delay admission to college until their 21? ” In many cases it would, particularly if you haven’t decided on a major. My opponent mentions not all jobs in the military are dangerous, that is true but it is far more dangerous than college. Yes it is true the military does pay for college and that is why many join for that reason rather than they fully believe in the cause or they are thinking more about the money than the risks involved. [1]I think for college something you learn in high school should be to have a plan, other countries deal with this easier by having a track system. This could lead to a whole new argument in itself, but it can actually be an effective means of dealing with these problems. The biggest downside being the lack of choice later on. [2]I wish I had made another round but I didn’t so that does it for my argument. I feel I have demonstrated my case. So vote for me if you are convinced. Thank you. 1 . http://sundial.csun.edu...2 . https://www.usnews.com...
The enlistment age for the military should be raised

I want to enlist myself, but lets get to my arguments. I know I don't really need to make arguments because Benny is arguing against the status quo, but it might clear up what I am arguing. #1. Joining the military is truly something people want to do. When Benny says we should raise the enlistment age to 21, he ignores that maybe that those who enlist right after High School graduation have been thinking about this for years. Benny says the military is dangerous, but about 80% of all jobs in the military are non-combat[3]Now lets get to Benny's case. Benny correctly states that the military is a big deal and joining is not a decision to take lightly. Because teenagers are not the most rational bunch, we should raise the enlistment age to 21, like we do in for drinking alcohol. I disagree that teenagers are too irrational. Teenagers have about 5 years worth of actual life experience, and I don't quite understand why Benny is saying the military can't give teenagers the skills they need, as everyone should gain those skills by simply growing up, although readjusting is a problem for most vets, its not *quite* as bad in our day and age. Many join 'real' groups of communities/clubs/what-have-you. You could join Law Enforcement. Would it be rational and beneficial to teens if we delay admission to college until their 21? The average student debt is about $30,000[1]. I would say it is not our place to delay anyone from any decisions. If Benny wants to delay enlistment, then I can see him wanting to delay college admission. After all, for 4(ish) years they get about $30,000 dollars in debt, and even then they truly might not know what they want to do. [2] is a webpage about myths about majors and all that fun stuff. Basically at least half of all students are undecided when entering college. Would it be wise to say our college students are impulsive? Of course not. While the military might not the best course of action for some, it truly is the best medicine for others, like someone who lacks a purpose, or wants to be a LEO. Thank you. [1]. http://ticas.org... [2] . http://sites.laverne.edu...[3] . http://www.military.com...
The enlistment age for the military should be raised

It is often said “why is it someone is old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to drink alcohol”? This is often used as an argument to support lowering the drinking age. I agree with the original premise of the statement but to the exact opposite conclusion. Rather than lowering the drinking age we should raise the voting age. As a matter of fact, dying for your country is a significantly larger responsibility than drinking alcohol. First of all, a lot of people sign up right out of high school. That doesn’t give them enough time to experience adult civilian life. SO when they do get out they have trouble adjusting as they have never experienced it before. [1] While much of that is due to PTSD, it is exacerbated by a lack of real world experience they can fall back on as many are unable to find jobs. Raising the enlistment age would allow them to gain valuable life experience to make them better informed about the world, which is an important thing to have before joining the military. It would also allow them to gained experience for jobs in the civilian world before they enlist, that way they would have an easier time finding a job when they get out.One other aspect of my argument is that the brain does not finish developing until the mid-20s. [2] Waiting until later when they are mentally more mature would allow them to make more informed decisions and not sign up compulsively (which is what recruiters often count on). They may sign up on the promise of cheaper college tuition rather than truly believing in the cause as well as manipulating them in other ways, such as claiming it will make it easier for them to find a job when they get out which as mentioned above, is simply not true. [3] Would you prefer someone who is impulsive or someone who is able to make well informed decision in the military?I thank my opponent for accepting and look forward to their arguments.Sources:1 http://abc7.com...2 https://www.sciencedaily.com...3 https://www.thebalance.com...