BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women Should not be Considered for Front Line Combat Roles, and Additionally Excluded From the Draft

One of the trending ideas of the modern age is the notion of absolute equality between genders, which is a falsehood. Granted in modern society we have equity in opportunity, we need to accept that men are better fit to function in some ways than women, and vice versa. In particular, biology has granted men a sturdier frame and and are privy to nearly 40 percent more muscle mass in the upper body than women, with 33 percent in the lower muscular structure. This in total is nearly a 50 percent advantage. The job in combat is always to achieve victory at the lowest casualty rate, essentially the highest efficiency. Under this pretense, why do we opt to conform to social ideas in a war zone over simple biology? Not only this, men are subject to exponentially larger amounts of testosterone, which stimulates muscle growth and adrenaline production. Men are even subject to a larger skeletal system on average. Not only this, but in the form of maturation, males are tailored for a longer period of time into physical specimens, while women are prepared for childbirth. This alone is indicative of the very different roles each gender plays. Men are naturally the aggressors, and in the words of Ret General James T. Mattis, a highly respected four star general from the Marine Corps, our focus should be directed at making the "most lethal" fighting force possible. In this case men are the more lethal subject, and this is why we have fought in all major conflicts as the majority for thousands of years. Speaking of the Marines, they have been forced to drop their training standards repeatedly in order to generate an acceptable amount of women who pass. Mattis also cited this is his confirmation hearings. Women are also put at a disadvantage given their more rigorous practical hygiene. This is a added cost to the military to supply, and an unacceptably one, from tax dollars. On a more ideological note, there are infinite more ways to torture a captured female soldier than there are a male. I also point to professional fighting leagues l, where trans men are transitioning into female divisions l, and destroying the competition. Anything is possible in war, and the majority of the time a man will come out on top in hand to hand combat
Solution to jobs and manufacturing being lost to cheap labor over seas.

I propose the following: Any and all companies foreign or domestic that want to sell anything in this country should have to follow the same rules and regulations that go with doing business and manufacturing domestically in this country. I have no problem with an American business packing up and going overseas to get cheap labor. They can sell to the rest of the world, but if they want to sell their products in this country, they should have to take all of the regulatory baggage that US based businesses have to follow here. That means OSHA, health and safety inspectors, workers comp, lawyers and the law suites that go with them and anything else that a US based business has to put up with to do business domestically. This will bring back manufacturing jobs and even the ridiculous uneven playing field for American based businesses. You can call it a tariff if you want, but it is not. It is regulation of employee safety and regulation of unsafe manufacturing processes. Just look at all of the stuff coming from China and all the other third world cheap/slave labor countries. None of what they sell would pass inspection in this country nor would their employee safety procedures. No one can make a logical argument other than to say it gives access to cheap products. But at what cost? Americans should be willing to pay more for a safe and superior product. You risk your life anytime you buy something made in China or any other country that has no safety standards. Our govt knowingly and willingly let unsafe products from China and other countries that have no standards come into this country. If we as Americans would band together and adopted this approach we would be able to keep the high standard of living that is being lost. Manufacturing jobs would come back by the millions because their would be no point in leaving as it would cost just as much to manufacture something overseas plus the added cost of shipping it back to the US. This would save energy. This would increase quality, This would increase customer support, It would also at the same time raise the standard of living around the world and eliminate the sweat shop slave labor of foreign companies that want to do business in the US. So that makes it a humanitarian plus also. People would say the down side would be that the rest of the world would not buy American made products because they are to expensive. I remember not so long ago when anything that said "Made in USA" meant that it was of the highest quality and there was no shortage of customers to buy the "Made in USA" product. Quality never goes out of style and there is always a market for quality products and people are willing to pay more for them. This in tern as it used to be, would ensure our high standard of living that is now being lowered by cheap slave labor overseas.
High schools should have lectures

Students should be allowed to type up notes because typing is most often faster, then they email or print out a copy for their friends if they missed class. If they don't ave time to catch up, the ways schools are run now wouldn't make any difference. They would get the social skills because in the worksheet lessons they will discuss their responses and ideas. There will also be science practicals and some demonstrations or video clips if needed. In PE, art, technology and drama this won't happen because the whole lesson is basically a practical. The student will also gain social skills in these lessons
High schools should have lectures

There are also some downs with that sort of idea. Not always can people get the notes from their partner's etc...etc. There are a lot of people nowadays with horrendous handwriting. (such as myself) And will not be able to take down the notes. And what if someone possibly has work and will have no time to be able to take down any notes they have missed. I do suggest that notes if someone could be typed and printed for the student that needs them. Also not always can things be discussed by a lecture. So it's a bad idea to have lectures as most of the class period. And alongside the fact that classes are supposed to prepare you for the real world where you will have to do things with other people. Yes, getting notes is one of them but group things will be harder to do without the social skills.
High schools should have lectures

(With the exception on PE, experiments, art, music and any sort of practical work). If we had a system like this then it would better prepare students for university. It would be a much simpler system, which would benefit students and teachers. In the lecture lessons we just take notes, if you miss the lesson then you copy notes from someone else. Homework from that lesson will just be to revise your notes. Next lesson you get a worksheet on the previous lecture to put your ideas into action. To catch up you find the teacher, get the work sheet and complete it. The homework will be to finish the worksheet. This method might be hard for some students, but if you want a degree and a good job, you need to know how to do this. It is better to start preparations early. I am a student and I think this would be an easier more structured way to learn because everyone will know what to do to catch up and for homework every lesson. This will save the teacher time explaining it and give us more learning time. Therefore better results and brighter minds.
The internet CAN run out of space

My opponent makes two main arguments 1-Every computer runs out of memory This is impossible. Many computers do not even access the internet, much less fill themselves to the brim with data. What is one possible reason this unwarranted claim could actually happen? 2-There is no more room to make another computer This is, again, impossible. If there were no more room to make a computer, we would be dead. Again, there is NO warrant to this claim. For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1)The above definition of Romantic Love is agreed upon by both parties. 2)Although it is possible to be emotionally intimate with more than one person at once, (i) that does not prove there to be a physical relationship also, and (ii) if there are multiple persons then this emotion is not in the genuine care of the others well being. 3)Although it is possible to be physically intimate with more than one person at once, being physically intimate with multiple people does not always mean that there is an emotionally intimate feeling towards also. 4)Although it is possible to care genuinely for the well-being of more than one person at once, that does not prove the possibility of emotionally intimate nor physically intimate relations with this person. They could merely be a stranger, and you may have a general interest in the well being of all humans. 5)There is reason why the possibility statement of Pro"s premises 2,3, and 4 being the true reality of a scenario would exclude the possibility of either of the other two also being true with reasoning provided in above premises 2,3, and 4. (For example, if a person is emotionally intimate with more then one person at once, it does not exclude them from only being physically emotionally with or genuinely caring about only one person at once. 6)Because of premises 2,3,4, and 5, it is impossible to romantically love more then one person at once since all through parts agreed upon in our definition of Romantic Love ( (i) emotionally and (ii) physically intimate relationships in which (iii) both people care genuinely for the well being of the other,) is not achieved simultaneously. 7)Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once. *Note: My initial argument against the viability of possibility to romantically love more than one person at once still stands due to the insufficiency of my opponents reasoning within his premises.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1.) A relationship between two people which is characterized by romantic love means that it is both an emotionally and physically intimate relationship in which both people care genuinely for the well-being of the other. 2.) It is possible to be emotionally intimate with more than one person at once. 3.) It is possible to be physically intimate with more than one person at once. 4.) It is possible to care genuinely for the well-being of more than one person at once. 5.) There is no reason why the possibility statement of any of premises 2, 3, or 4 being the true reality of a scenario would exclude the possibility of either of the other two also being true. (For example, if a person is emotionally intimate with more than one person at once, it does not prevent them from also being physically intimate with or genuinely caring about more than one person at once, etc.) 6.) Because of premise 5, it is possible to be emotionally and physically intimate with and to genuinely care about more than one person at once. 7.) Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. *Note: my initial argument stands because my opponent's points in round 3 still have not sufficiently disproved any of my argument's premises.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

2) Even if the person is open about having multiple relationships, the nature of the human species biologically is to be monogamous. Ultimately it degrades the quality of all the relationships, whether openly accepted or in secret, to spread the emotional resources of one person between more than one love. This produces a situation where genuine care cannot be attained because this is not in the best interest of the person who is supposed being romantically loved. 3) The argument as stated in 2) also applies. Once again, it is the nature of humans to be monogamous. If there are physical multiple relationships, it may be open between the parties but it is doubtful there is not some emotion involved. This goes to the spreading out of the emotional resources of the parties which does not indicate genuine care, as it is not in the parties' best interests. Therefore, all the criteria for the definition of romantic love have not been met.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

2) It isn't necessarily the case that a person who is emotionally intimate with more than one person is doing so deceitfully (keeping each person secret from the other person). It is conceivable for a person to be emotionally intimate with more than one person at once and for each of those people to know about and be unharmed by each other emotionally intimate relationship. 3) 2) applies here as well. It is not necessarily the case that a person who is emotionally and physically intimate with more than one person is deceiving each of those people.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

2) It would not be in the genuine care of a person to be emotionally intimate with multiple persons as it would be potentially harmful to each person one is emotionally intimate with if the others discovered the duplicity of emotional intimacy. 3) Although your statement is true that it is conceivable for a person to be emotionally and physically intimate with more than one person at once, as stated in 2, this would not show genuine caring as it is potentially harmful to each person one is both emotionally and physically intimate with if the duplicity is discovered. 4) 2 and 3 disprove that one can genuinely care about the same (multiple) people one is emotionally and physically intimate with, as 2 and 3 establish there is not genuine care since the potential discovery of physical and emotional duplicity may be damaging to those people.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

(2.) Why, if you are emotionally intimate with multiple persons, can it not also be in the genuine care of those persons? It is not necessarily true that you cannot genuinely care about the same people (more than one) whom you also are emotionally intimate with. (3.) True, being physically intimate with multiple people does not necessarily mean that there is emotional intimacy with each of those people as well, but this does not disprove the possibility that there CAN be emotional intimacy with each of them. It is conceivable for a person to be emotionally and physically intimate with more than one person at once. (4.) Similarly, it is still conceivable for a person to genuinely care about the same people (more than one) who that person also is emotionally and physically intimate with.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1) The above definition of Romantic Love is agreed upon by both parties. 2) Although it is possible to be emotionally intimate with more than one person at once, (i) that does not prove there to be a physical relationship also, and (ii) if there are multiple persons then this emotion is not in the genuine care of the others well being. 3) Although it is possible to be physically intimate with more than one person at once, being physically intimate with multiple people does not always mean that there is an emotionally intimate feeling towards also. 4) Although it is possible to care genuinely for the well- being of more than one person at once, that does not prove the possibility of emotionally intimate nor physically intimate relations with this person. They could merely be a stranger, and you may have a general interest in the well being of all humans. 5) There is reason why the possibility statement of Pro"s premises 2,3, and 4 being the true reality of a scenario would exclude the possibility of either of the other two also being true with reasoning provided in above premises 2,3, and 4. (For example, if a person is emotionally intimate with more then one person at once, it does not exclude them from only being physically emotionally with or genuinely caring about only one person at once. 6) Because of premises 2,3,4, and 5, it is impossible to romantically love more then one person at once since all through parts agreed upon in our definition of Romantic Love ( (i) emotionally and (ii) physically intimate relationships in which (iii) both people care genuinely for the well being of the other,) is not achieved simultaneously. 7) Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-controversial: 1. Agreed upon Controversial: 2 -7
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1.) A relationship between two people which is characterized by romantic love means that it is both an emotionally and physically intimate relationship in which both people care genuinely for the well-being of the other. 2.) It is possible to be emotionally intimate with more than one person at once. 3.) It is possible to be physically intimate with more than one person at once. 4.) It is possible to care genuinely for the well-being of more than one person at once. 5.) There is no reason why the possibility statement of any of premises 2, 3, or 4 being the true reality of a scenario would exclude the possibility of either of the other two also being true. (For example, if a person is emotionally intimate with more than one person at once, it does not prevent them from also being physically intimate with or genuinely caring about more than one person at once, etc.) 6.) Because of premise 5, it is possible to be emotionally and physically intimate with and to genuinely care about more than one person at once. 7.) Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-controversial premises: Premises 1, 2, 3, and 4 are non-controversial. Premise 1 is a definition which was agreed on. Premises 2, 3, and 4 are generally accepted statements and I expect that they will not be rejected. Controversial premises: Premises 5 and 6 are controversial. In premise 5: unless it can be demonstrated that any of premises 2, 3, or 4, if it were true, would prevent either of the others from being possible (for example if a person being emotionally intimate with more than one person at once made it impossible to genuinely care about more than one person at once, etc.), then this is a reasonable possibility claim. Premise 6 is contingent on premise 5 being true.
Resolved: Institutional Racism is Significantly Present in America

[RedMoonlight -- Please update your links properly as you did not transfer them from last debate properly.] I will refute institutional racism in America based on two definitions: 1) The Pro's (Redmoonlight) source but using the definition it points to by link (click the link for institutional racism in website provided by Pro): a) Definition: Institutional racism refers to racism perpetrated by government entities such as schools, the courts or the military. Unlike the racism perpetrated by individuals, institutional racism has the power to negatively affect the bulk of people belonging to a racial group. b) Link: http://racerelations.about.com... 2) The definition provided by The Oxford English Dictionary: a) noun: [MASS NOUN]: Racial discrimination that has become established as normal behaviour within a society or organization b) Link: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Resolved: Institutional Racism is Significantly Present in America

In this debate, I'll be arguing in favor of the resolution that institutional racism is both present in America, and present to a "significant" degree. Definitions: Institutional racism: societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. [1] Significant: Sufficiently"great or important to be"worthy of attention;"noteworthy. [2] America: The United States of America. [1] http://civilliberty.about.com...... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... First round is for acceptance. I'll have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support the resolution. Con is responsible for refuting my assertions and evidence.
Abortion is a justified practice.

The opponent begins by stating that my 'forced organ donation' argument is an appeal to emotion since women are not forced to be pregnant. Two important things to note here:1. Sometimes a woman is forced to be pregnant. As I've mentioned before, some women are raped. They have no choice in their pregnancy.2. Even if a woman becomes pregnant, she is forced to remain pregnant if abortion is not an option. This directly links back to my parable in the previous round as well as my parasite argument (which the opponent still has not attempted to refute.)That is about all my opponent said in the previous round. Let's move to my closing remarks. ConclusionMy opponent did not make an attempt to adequately address my parasite argument. Given this, the argument still stands and I have won the debate on this issue alone. What's more, my opponent's only real argument seems to be that "a baby has a right to life", which I have refuted multiple times through my parasite argument and my forced donation argument. A mother's right to not have to host a parasite on her body trumps the baby's right to live. If there were a way to remove the fetus so that it could still live, we would do that. But given current technology there is no way to remove the fetus from the womb without it dying. Vote Pro because I had superior arguments and because I had the courtesy to hit all of Con's arguments, while they did not return the favor. I have met my burden of proof; the opponent has hardly constructed a viable argument. Thanks for reading.
Abortion is a justified practice.

The so called forced organ donation argument is an appeal to emotion. No one is forcing women to be pregnant. They have the option to use contraception. Also, the fetus has the rigt to live. If you don't want a baby, use contraception, even multiple forms if you have to. The Affordable Care Act makes it that much easier for people to use contraception. Thank you for debating me, and I am sorry if I missed anything.