BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

Thanks Joe for accepting this as your first debate. Since I'm arguing a negative statement, any arguments I make will actually be strawmans. But, I need to say something, so I will address some common arguments about race and let Joe make his points next round for me to refute. Let's have some fun! One of the common arguments are that whites are smarter than blacks based on average IQ scores. This seems like a solid argument, but you must understand that this only shows a correlation, not a cause. That means that it doesn't show that race is the cause of those IQ differences. Looking at other studies, we totally see that the income of parents makes an impact on the IQ of their children, which passes through to their adulthood. We also find a really cool and interesting pattern. Rich parents are more likely to have smart kids, who will grow into smart adults, and who will make more money and become rich adults. While poor parents are more likely to have dumb kids, who will grow into dumb adults, and who will make less money and become more poor parents. This shows true regardless of race. Smart black people have smart kids. Smart white people have smart kids. Dumb black people have dumb kids. And dumb white people have dumb kids. So we can totally tell that race is not a factor. (1)(2) In fact anything that has to do with genetics can basically have race ruled out. Most of the genetic variation between two unrelated people are not race related. A person's skin color, or nose shape, or eye shape, or anything else used to stereotype races only really accounts for about 6-10% of the genetic variation from other people. (3) I'll stop at that one. Joe can go ahead and present what he thinks makes race have a significant effect on ones abilities. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org...
Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to be debating this topic with curious18. Race debates are very uncommon in today's politically correct world, and let me say that I thank you for debating race with me, even if you arguing against me. (Looking at some of the other debates on this website, I will try to follow their format to make it easier for the voters) Since my opponent hasn't really defined any terms within the resolution, I shall proceed to do so. Definitions: Race (In Anthropological Terms)- any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. Has- a 3rd person singular present indicative of have. No- An adverb used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement. Significant- important; of consequence. Affect- to act on; produce an effect or change in. On- so as to be attached to or unified with. A- Used when referring to someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation. Person- a human being, whether man, woman, or child. Ablities- talents; special skills or aptitudes.
School Uniforms are a good Idea

The Guardian newspaper claims that school uniforms do not necessarily leed to good results. In fact one of the most up-and-coming schools in England does not require a school uniform--http://m.guardian.co.uk... Most websites that I've looked at suggest that the continued use of school uniforms is based almost entirely on tradition. The fact that all UK academies have strict rules on school uniforms ( also quoted on the above Guardian web page ) supports this claim. Governments like people to think that school uniforms leed to an increase in grade C-A* exam results as this shifts the cost on to the parents rather than the Dept. Of Education. Seeing as pro forfeit the previous round; I think that will do for now.
School Uniforms are a good Idea

OK. I'll start by saying I'm a socialist and I believe that there should be no social differences between different families. The fact remains though that there are great social differences between families but, when it comes to clothing, casual clothes can be bought for far less money than school uniforms if done efficiently and wisely ( for instance if bought from Primark ) . And lets face it; no-one is going to go to school in designer clothes that they bare the risk of damaging or defacing. For those reasons I really don't think money is a problem.Another premise you use is the reduction of violence and sex-offences. You have not stated why you think there is an increase in violence and you have not offered any relevant sources of information so I cannot argue this point. The premise of an increase in sex-offence however is, I assume, in your opinion, is caused by girls wearing mini skirts, low necked-tops, e.t.c. People cannot be blamed for sexual attacks directed at them under any circumstances! People should be able to wear what they want without having to worry about a criminal attacking them. The purpose of the 'SlutWalk' protests is to promote this point. You can look those up on Google.Finally, I can talk from experience. My school has hosted many 'No Uniform' days which allow us to wear what we want for the duration of that day. Our education is no less intuitive or productive on those days, and no-one is attacked or sexually abused, what-so-ever.J.P.
School Uniforms are a good Idea

I support the idea of school uniforms. There are strong reasons for that. I wore school uniform from 7 to 15 years old and I'd never felt that it reflects on my personality or stops me from expressing myself. I knew that it was just a rule and I was never agains the discipline. Discipline lead to good results. So students were more concentrated on their studies than on their clothes and also they shouldn't spent at least 30-40 minutes in front of wardrobe choosing the best outfit for that day. In schools where uniforms are required there is decreasing of fights, violence among students, sexual offencies and what is important there is less comparision between people from different social levels. So students from families where cannot efford expensive and fancy clothes are more likely to feel equal to those from richer families.
Objective Reality Must Exist

This is my first, so I apologize if I don't follow the etiquette very well. The argument for objective reality - that is, external truths - is simple. It can be shown through asking simple questions which I will demonstrate. The first question would be, is there an objective reality? If you answer yes, then all is well. If you answer no, then a number of following questions can be asked. If you answer no, I would ask, is that objectively true? Is it true that there is no objective reality? If it is, then an objective statement has been made concerning reality, which is that it is objectively true that reality is subjective. Or perhaps a could ask, is there an answer to the first question? If you say yes there is, and the answer to the first question is no, then you have made another objective statement, that yes, there is a definite answer to the first question. As perhaps a slightly weaker but supportive argument, even if the universe could somehow be subjective, if it was truly subjective, than wouldn't, subjectively, my belief in an objective universe be valid? This is a basic but I believe very strong proof of objective reality. I look forward to seeing my opponent's response.
Objective Reality Must Exist

I'm practicing arguments and I don't know what you mean. I'm giving this a shot! :) I think our personal beliefs on some topic may not exist. For example, in religion some people believe God is real and atheists don't. Both try to push views on others, yet none prevail, maybe at arguments, but both can be blind out of ignorance to reason. Topics doesn't have to be religion it could be anything from dogs jumping to animal rights to Gay rights to racism to religion to politics. I'm doing this argument on purpose to learn more!
Objective Reality Must Exist

I will be arguing that yes, an objective reality does exist and can be discerned. My opponent will argue that no, an objective reality does not exist, or that it cannot be discerned. Definitions; Objective Reality - A reality that exists outside of personal beliefs, whims or opinions. Discern - To recognize or discover. First round is for acceptance, or if you'd like, you may put forward the opening argument. I hope for a good debate!
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

I affirm Intelligent Design is a Scientific Theory. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologist is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. The scientific method is commonly described as a four step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and cconclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. So, as stated above and by definition Intelligent Design is a Scientific Theory
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

I affirm that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. [Definitions] Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the universe and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god). Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. [Burdens] Affirmative- Show that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Negative- Show that Intelligent design is a scientific theory. I'll let my opponent make the first move.
Term Limits

I will rebuttal for this round. I believe that the term limit can help strict the powers of a president who wants to be a dictator. My first point is that a president have limited power in some major countries such as the US. The three branches of government makes sure that the president have too much power. Also, even though the executive branch is the operational command of the military, only the legislative have the sole power to wage war.(for more information about the three branches of government of America, look here http://en.wikipedia.org...) A president cannot easily change the constitution when the legislative is around. The 22th admendment of the constitution clearly states that SECTION 1 No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Amendment 22 SECTION 2 This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. COMMENTARY: This amendment provides that no person can be elected to President more than twice. No one who has served as President for more than two years of someone else's term can be elected more than once. One President can hold office for no more than 10 years. The amendment was supported by people who thought President Franklin D. Roosevelt should not serve four terms. No other President had run for election to more than two consecutive terms. My second rebuttal is that the term limit does not completely block good leaders from staying. This is another reason why we do not let even good presidents stay even though they did a good job. As I said before if a person has the job for too long the president might now put enough effort into the job because he does not have to worry about term limit. This has happened to some kings in history who had led a country to sucess at first than failure at the end. My third rebuttal is about national crisis. Con had given us an example that if Iraq attacks us during a election, where is the leader. The vice president is one solution. During world war II after Germany had surrendered, Japan had not given up. After president Franklin D. Roosevelt died, president Harry S. Truman had made the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. This concludes the second and final round of the debate.
Term Limits

Hello Yoon, and thanks for accepting my challenge. First of all just because there is a term limit, doesn't mean that the presidency would be more competitive. It also could be the other way. Like if one person is a president for more than 2 years, and the other people have not tried it, than the other people would work much harder to get elected because they want to be a president too. You also said that this system was created to stop dictatorships right? Well, like I said in my last argument, to a dictator, a constitution is just a piece of paper if he has his army and his power to modify the constitution. What good is term limits, if they can't stop a dictator? My second point is that this term limit that is supposed to prevent dictators from ruling forever, is preventing good leaders from being elected more than twice. This is not a very good system. By using this term limit system, it would block a good leader from running the nation one more time to make a better nation. Why do we have to stop the people from choosing a leader more than a second time, when they want that leader? My third point is that in some national crisis, a strong leader could help the nation more effectively. Imagine that we have a election and suddenly some nation like Iraq attack us? We cannot wait until we elected a new leader. It would be more effective, if one leader leads the country throughout a national crisis without blockage. For example, if FDR(Franklin Delano Roosevelt) haven't been elected more that 2 times, and couldn't execute "New Deal" how could this country have survived from the Great Depression? So, my conclusion is that term limit system is ineffective and useless and therefore, there should not be term limit any more. Thank you for listening
Term Limits

In many countries, there are term limits for presidency. I believe that term limits are helpful to the country. One way is that it would make the job more competitive. Causing the candidates to do a much better job because it would point up the fact that they are not going to be able to keep this job for life. "This system" is used in many countries because of dictatorship. Many countries feared this after World War I. People like kim Jong II control a country completely and do whatever he likes because there isn't a term limit. Many people vote for candidates to be supported by them. The term limit as I said would make the job more competitive which means that candidates will do a better job to make what's best for the people. To summerize, I believe that the term limit pervents dictators to rise and it helps candidates to be more competitive with their job.
Term Limits

I disagree that we should have term limits. First off, the word term limits mean that "A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office. Term limits are found usually in presidential and semi-presidential systems as a method to curb the potential for dictatorships, where a leader effectively becomes "president for life". There are different types of term limits. Sometimes, there is an absolute limit on the number of terms a person can serve, while in other cases, the restrictions are merely on the number of consecutive terms a person can serve" (IN Wikipedia)However, I cannot see how a dictator can be stopped by a simple rule. The dictator can cheat, blackmail people to vote for him. Which means that even if there is a rule that saids, "No person can be elected for president more than two times", The dictator can change the constitution so he will be able to be the president forever. This simple rule will NEVER stop an ambitious dictator from being elected for more than two times. For example, President Syngman Rhee(Rhee Syngman) and President Park Jung Hee both served for presidency more than two times by using fake votes, military, blackmail. The term limits never stopped both of the presidents and they also made a new constitution which made both of them possible to serve presidency forever. I think that this is an ineffective system and should be stopped. Thank you for listening.
Vortex is a waste of Tax Payers money

Unfortunately, my counter arguments are largely untouched, and my second contention is still in tact. My opponent does not really seem to bring up new evidence this round, but simply restates his previous round. Following my opponent's advice, I did call up a good friend of mine. He is a meteorologist at the Air Force Academy. He said: "Sure, VORTEX was useful. It helped achieve some minor things such as a few more minutes of warning time and possibly aiding in some radar advancements. Honestly though, for how much funding it had, it achieved very little...the money could be going to other, more affective areas." Mr. Sutherland practically summed up my entire case. Did VORTEX have some useful attributes? Sure. Was it effective given its almost 12 million dollar budget? Not really. Could the money be going to other, more worthy causes that actually affect MORE of the taxpayers funding the program? Certainly. This is why the program is a waste of taxpayer money.
Vortex is a waste of Tax Payers money

It seems funny how my opponent thinks the articles are not reliable. I guess he thinks they lied or made it up or such, but the evidence is right there and every meteorologist would agree that the Vortex Project has helped the world greatly. It has saved many lives and with out the Vortex Project, many would die. You can not dispute this fact. The VORTEX1 project sought to understand how a tornado is produced by deploying around 18 vehicles that are equipped with customized instruments used to measure and analyze the weather around a tornado. VORTEX1 documented the entire life cycle of a tornado for the first time.(1) Severe weather warnings improved after the research collected from VORTEX 1 and many believe that VORTEX1 contributed to this improvement(2). An important finding from the original VORTEX experiment was that the factors responsible for causing tornadoes happen on smaller time and space scales than scientists had thought. New advances will allow for a more detailed sampling of a storm's wind, temperature and moisture environment and lead to a better understanding of why tornadoes form – and how they can be more accurately predicted," said Stephan Nelson, NSF program director for physical and dynamic meteorology(3 & 4) Ask ANY Meteorologist if Vortex was useful, and every single one would say yes. Its easy to ask a few, just call up your local News Team and ask to speak to there Chief Meteorologist. 1- http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 2- http://www.newson6.com... 3- http://www.kktv.com... 4- http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Vortex is a waste of Tax Payers money

"Actually my friend, VORTEX is quite useful. You see, Severe weather warnings improved after the research collected from VORTEX 1 and many believe that VORTEX 1 contributed to this improvement(1)" My opponent does not seem to realize the existence of confounding variables. Correlation does not equal causation. In 1800s Massachusetts, the importation of alcohol increased directly after the amount of Puritan ministers increased. Many believed this to mean that Puritan ministers caused a rise in alcohol. Sound ridiculous to anyone? Coincidences happen. Scientific advancements happen all the time, regardless of extraneous studies. "Also Doppler weather radar was greatly improved with the VOTEX 1 Project. VORTEX research allowed the National Weather Service to provide tornado warnings to residents with a lead time of 13 minutes.(2)" Here is a quote from his source: "VORTEX findings are credited for improving National Weather Service tornado warnings, which now have a lead time of about 13 minutes." My opponent fails to tell us what the lead time was before this study. Could it have been 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 12 minutes? I can say that due to a recent telecommunications advancement, AT&T's 3g network now covers 96% of American soil. I am being misleading because the previous coverage zone was 95%. Moreover, even if the previous lead time was much lower, 13 minutes is hardly enough time to do anything about the situation. 13 minutes does not give one time to move a trailer house. Besides, I think people in tornado-prone areas are smart enough to look outside and see if there are vortexes forming. "A federal research meteorologist, Don Burgess, estimates that the "false alarms" pertaining to severe weather by the National Weather Service have declined by 10 percent.(3)" Again, this is someone's opinion. Note, in the article my opponent cites the meteorologist says that he thinks the study "helped" bring the rate of false alarms down. This hardly seems to be conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of the program. My opponent has left my entire second contention untouched, and I need not restate it now. The resolution is affirmed.
Vortex is a waste of Tax Payers money

Actually my friend, VORTEX is quite useful. You see, Severe weather warnings improved after the research collected from VORTEX 1 and many believe that VORTEX 1 contributed to this improvement(1) Also Doppler weather radar was greatly improved with the VOTEX 1 Project. VORTEX research allowed the National Weather Service to provide tornado warnings to residents with a lead time of 13 minutes.(2) A federal research meteorologist, Don Burgess, estimates that the "false alarms" pertaining to severe weather by the National Weather Service have declined by 10 percent.(3) 1- http://www.newson6.com... 2- http://bbsnews.net... 3- http://www.enidnews.com...