BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
single sex schools are better for students

Separating children by sex in school, is a good idea, especially at a young age. When separating the sexes critics use the argument that female students need to get the same education as their male counter parts. I say, they will both get better educations if they are separated at a young age to help them both avoid the distractions from the needs of the other. Parents should raise Males and Females differently so why shouldn't we educate them differently too?There are many issues with our educational system, how we teach our young boys in one of those issues. Many young boys, ages 2 until puberty, so between 10-13 years, are much less mature than their female counter parts, but what they lack in maturity they make up in being hyper active beings. Young boys are much more likely to have "ADD and ADHD" 2 "diseases that have been made up because educators do not know how to keep young children, mainly boys calm and attentive in class, young boys are much more likely to face disciplinary issues, more likely to repeat a class and more likely to fall behind. Young boys need more discipline at a young age to help them develop they also need much more activity. Young boys need to learn from their mistakes not punished before they make the mistake. They need to be yelled at and worked hard. Young girls do not need this in their education and with out the distraction of boys causing a riot in class they will be better off than they would in co ed classes. If having co ed classes helps with real world experiences, then having single sex schools, you can teach, boys in general, how to respect others much better, how to be gentleman, how to be better men. Something that only a select few boys can learn outside the home. If there is not male figure in the house, who does the young boy look up to as his male figure? A male teacher? where are those in elementary schools? They look up to gang leaders and drug dealers. The negatives of coed education far out weigh the positives when you think about all the possibilities 5-6 years of a single sex education can have on childminder
single sex schools are better for students

Perhaps the opposite gender could be a distraction for students in the classroom, but by grouping students by gender, we lose important elements of true education. In a diverse classroom, there are countless questions, different perspectives, and a variety of interests, which all add to the excitement of learning. Our students have much to contribute to each other, and students of all ages benefit from being engaged in activities and learning in the company of the opposite sex. In the classroom, learning experiences need to resemble real-world life experiences. How can we prepare students for future families, homes, and workplaces without exposing them to members of the opposite sex? How can we expect them to learn to respect and appreciate gender differences as adults if we do not teach them to form healthy relationships and have positive interactions and appropriate dialogues now? I also believe that female classmates encourage many unmotivated male students. In my middle school classroom, I see my female students try to motivate my male students who seem to be less interested. As educators, our efforts should not be driven by how we can separate students to minimize distractions but by how we can bring all students together to maximize learning. In my experience, students tend to learn better when teachers learn to teach better"regardless of the gender of the students.
The Existence Of God

I am con, and I do not agree to the resolution, which is, God exists in all planes. Since my opponent has failed to post the resolution, I define it as such. It is now mine, and irreversible. Definition of exist: to have being or reality http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Definition of plane. A level of development, existence, or achievement http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Now, that said, creationists state that God does not exist in the material realm. Ergo, God does not exist in all realms. I win. Vote Con. Another argument would be that God does not exist in every level of development, as the definition states. If God did, than he would never have been perfect, as developing means that he is progressing, or changing in some way. Why would a perfect being need to change or develop? Therefore, God is not perfect. Ergo, God does not exist. In a syllogism: P1:God is Perfect. P2:Perfect beings do not need to develop change, or progress. P2A:To develop/change/progress is to be imperfect. (From P2) P2B:God, as 'it' is perfect, does not need to develop/change/progress. (From P2) P3:Therefore, God does not ever develop/change/progress. (From P2, P2A, and P2B) P4:Therefore, God would not exist in every level of development, as development is imperfect. (From P2, P2A, P2B, and P3) P5:Ergo, God would not exist in every plane. (From P4)
The Existence Of God

-Rebuttals The resolution was stated in the title "Does God exist? ". I did not limit the resolution as I did not want a debate on a particular God. I didn't narrow down the question to a particular plane. Your first argument shows a unusual display of arrogance. Claiming victory in the first round is less than good form, but I digress. In response to this argument "Now, that said, creationists state that God does not exist in the material realm. Ergo, God does not exist in all realms. I win. Vote Con. " It is unwise to choose the belief of your opponent. I never stated that I was in fact a creationist. I purposely left my particular belief out because it is irrelevant to this debate. Also I state that if God exists he is supreme over everything. Thereby making the so called "planes" subject to him. He is not bound by the planes, but rather he is in control of them. He does not exist in any of the planes, but rather they exist in him. Secondly You stated "God does not exist in the material realm. Ergo, God does not exist in all realms. ". By this you claim that anything that cannot be measured, experimented on, or seen does not exist. If you actually believe this how can you account for emotion, memory, & fear. In your second argument you state. .. . "In a syllogism: P1:God is Perfect. P2:Perfect beings do not need to develop change, or progress. P2A:To develop/change/progress is to be imperfect. (From P2) P2B:God, as 'it' is perfect, does not need to develop/change/progress. (From P2) P3:Therefore, God does not ever develop/change/progress. (From P2, P2A, and P2B) P4:Therefore, God would not exist in every level of development, as development is imperfect. (From P2, P2A, P2B, and P3) P5:Ergo, God would not exist in every plane. (From P4)" This argument doesn't interfere with God's existence at all! God isn't part of any plane. He is supreme over the planes. He is their creator. - Contentions 1. There are four possibilities for the existence of this world. a) It isn't here b) It always been here c) It suddenly existed with no prompting d) It was created The first two are impossible. We do exist. It cannot always have been here. The law of entropy states that all motion will eventually come to a halt. For matter to appear out of nothingness is preposterous. This leaves only the final option. 2. Motion For there to be motion there must be an initial force. This force cannot come from emptiness. It must come from a creator, or supreme being.
people feel they've met Jesus in NDEs, but do not experience figures from other religion

NDE near death experience. i know of no examples to say otherwise. just speculation by people that they do in fact experience an array of figures from an array of religions. no concrete examples. i'm asking for at least two or three examples. looking at it from the islamic faith, apparently there may be something to this"The Search for Muslim Near-Death Experiences"http://digital.library.unt.edu...;
Merit Pay for Teachers

I have been very busy. Today, I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments. In my opponent's first contention, part A, he says that teachers will go far enough to deprive students of a good education. You can see that teachers would be attempting to give students the best education possible to improve their achievement. If a student was given a poor education, wouldn't they achieve nothing? And because this merit pay is based on students' achievement, it makes sense for teacher to give the best education possible. And also for part B of my opponent's contention, I have nothing to say but this. We cannot say for sure if this merit pay, if the student achievement that the merit pay is based upon, is even going to be based on standardized tests. Therefore, teachers "teaching to the test" or narrowing curriculum may not even be a problem. We cannot worry about it in this debate. Moving on to my opponent's next contention, again, in part A, we cannot be sure that these students will be measured by which percentile they fit under. And also that "smart kids" can work without teacher assistance, but will they not achieve more with a teacher aiding them? And as for part B, though a teacher may have "an incorrigible jerky administration" I do not see how this would affect their pay. Or if they have students that are out of control, all teachers have these kids. There isn't a way out of getting them put in your class. But let me remind you that merit pay is extra pay. These teachers are not getting any less money, simply bonuses. I was a bit too short on time to gather evidence, but I hope this will do.
Music battle

Hi! So basically this is a battle to see who can post the most beautiful music. Note: Notice I said the most beautiful music. It doesn't necessarily have to be popular or catchy. Post songs/pieces that genuinely moved you. The debate will be structured as follows:R1: Pro outlines debate, Con acceptsR2: Pro and Con each post a link to their first selected compositionR3: Pro and Con each post a link to their second selected compositionR4:Pro and Con each post a link to their third selected compositionR5: Pro and Con each post a link to their final selected composition, along with which of their opponet's choices they liked the most (if any :P) and additional comments if desiredRules:1) No forfeits2) Compositions must have a duration no longer than 10 minutes3) The song/piece name and the name of the composer(s) must be provided in each round except this one4) Pro and Con may not post compositions by the same person or group5) If a composition is in a language other than English, an approximate translation must be provided6) Insulting an opponent's selection or otherwise trying to influence voters is not allowed7) A violation of any of the above rules constitutes a lossWith that said, I thank my opponent in advance and look forward to an inspiring debate! It will be up to the voters to decide who posted more beautiful compositions overall :)
Music battle

I look forward to debating you again next time! Final piece: Composition name: Best Wishes to You Composer:The one (OST Gu Family Book) Choi Jin Hyuk - Best Wishes ": . http://youtu.be... Lyrics are in the song. In my opinion, I like the first piece of your selection the most. Kiss the rain is a song that one can listen and relax completely. One of the reasons why this song is good is that it has a sort of calming effect that makes your relax or concentrate. Therefore, this is the song I like best in your selection.
Music battle

Final piece! Thanks to con for a great debate :)Composition name: Where Has the Time Gone? (translated from Chinese--DDO doesn't recognize Chinese characters)Composer: lyrics by Chén Xī; music by Dǒng D!3;ng D!3;ngTranslation can be found here (it loses the rhyme and rhythm in translation, but just so you get the general theme):http://eastasiastudent.net...I really liked your third selection, and the second one as well. They were both really beautiful pieces. Almost Remember was especially lyrical; in that aspect I found it similar to my first piece, Kiss the Rain. Unfortunatly I won't get to hear Con's last choice before I have to submit this round (bad structure on my part) but I trust that it will be wonderful. Over to you one last time, and I look forward to reading your comments about my own selections. Thanks again to Con.
"General statements are generally true" is an ifalliable statement.

I apologize in advance in case I strawman my opponent's argument. It appears that my opponent believes, for whatever reason, that I am obligated to contest both definitions. This is not so. I need only show one to be wrong before the statement becomes infallible, and by extension the resolution is negated. Prefer my OED definition of "infallible" to my opponent's "common language" definition, as I defined it first. I have never heard of "infallible" being used to mean "something which cannot be dis-proven"; I have generally only heard it meaning "something that cannot fail". (Apology again, here is where the strawmanning might begin) My opponent in his first paragraph seems to claim that "general statements are usually false in nature" supports the idea that "general statements are generally true" in the first sense. It does. As I have already said, prefer my definition. I defined it first, and accepting my opponent's definition would be very bad for me. In my opponent's last paragraph, he appears to be saying there is a paradox because "general statements are generally untrue" would then cause "general statements are generally true" to be true, causing the paradox. I do not presume to speak for any wider body of people, but I myself to do not consider a paradox to be infallible. Again using the Oxford English Dictionary, I define paradox (logical) as "An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premises and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument.". Therefore, I postulate that the paradoxical status of "general statements are generally true" with regards to "general statements are generally false" makes it fallible, as it is self-contradicting. Asserting the truth of a statement that contradicts the statement asserting the truth of the statement that contradicts the statement asserting the truth of the statement that contradicts the statement (...) must be considered fallible. It is fallible because stating "general statements are generally true" when "general statements are generally false" is a general statement causes a paradox, which is self-contradictory and therefore fallible, regardless of whether it is true or false. I cannot disprove the second definition, but not being able to disprove it does not make it infallible.
"General statements are generally true" is an ifalliable statement.

"For every one that is accurate, there are nearly infinite ones that are not. For example, I could state "Trees have leaves.", a general statement that I believe most people would acknowledge as fairly accurate. However, I could then go on to state "Trees have tentacles.", "Trees are aliens.", "Trees hate me." and "Trees are terrorists.". Those statements are all equally general, yet few (excepting dendrophobics) would accept them as factual representations of reality." While my opponent has made an excellent point in trying to destroy ONE of the definitions, he has overlooked that in order to show my statement that "general statements are generally true" is fallible my opponent needs to contest BOTH definitions laid out. Not only that, but my opponent has overlooked yet another loophole in which his own circumstances of creating many false generalizations can be accounted for. One could make the statement "general statements are usually false in nature" and it would be a true statement. And since that generalized statement could then be applied to all statements after that no matter how many generalizations one could make it would still support my statements that "generalizations are generally true" as the "true" statement in this circumstance would be addressing the ENTIRE body of generalized statements. Thus, the first definition of the generalized statement being TRUE still holds even when claiming all or even most generalizations are false as my original statement could support the position that it is TRUTH that generalizations are generally false within the entire body of generalized statements. This creates a situation common in brain teasers where "one head always lies and the other always tells the truth" and destroys my opponents argument against the number of generalized statements which can be claimed as false or true as the number of which being true or false is irrelevant. "Infallible" also means "something which cannot be dis-proven" in common language, and my statement cannot be dis-proven in the manner my opponent has just tried. My statement is incapable of being wrong as its meaning of "what is defined as truth", and its meaning of "how much of something that is defined is truth is truth" protect each others meanings. Until my opponent can dis-prove that general statements are generally false (in which I explained how that assertion itself creates a paradox where the first definition of my statement holds true by acknowledging the supposed fact where general statements are generally false, as that itself is a generalized statement), or are untrue within the body of the subject in question (as in, the very nature of making even a true generalization would be false in nature), my assertion may still be claimed as "infallible" as the second definition cannot be dis-proven, and the first statement is still sound. BOTH definitions must be contested before my argument can be proven false. (This might certainly become a argument in teleology. You will quickly learn that I enjoy paradoxes, which you now realize is what you are trying to disprove)
"General statements are generally true" is an ifalliable statement.

First, I would like to call attention to the resolution ""General statements are generally true" is an infalliable statement.". The only logical assumption is that 'infalliable' is supposed to mean 'infallible', which is what I now define it as meaning (as my opponent has not defined it and Round 1 was solely for acceptance, I believe that I ought to be able to define it). Infallible means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong". Therefore, in order for my opponent to affirm the resolution (he must undertake burden of proof as instigator and Pro) he must show that "General statements are generally true" is incapable of being wrong. This will not be an easy thing to do, but so far my opponent has done admirably. All this having been established, I now move on to my case. It is clear by viewing the statement "General statements are generally true" in the way my opponent does in his second meaning that it is fallible. For instance, consider all the general statements that can possibly be made. For every one that is accurate, there are nearly infinite ones that are not. For example, I could state "Trees have leaves.", a general statement that I believe most people would acknowledge as fairly accurate. However, I could then go on to state "Trees have tentacles.", "Trees are aliens.", "Trees hate me." and "Trees are terrorists.". Those statements are all equally general, yet few (excepting dendrophobics) would accept them as factual representations of reality. Therefore, in this way of viewing the statement, it becomes clear that general statements are actually generally false, as only a minority of general statements are true. "General statements are generally true", therefore, is capable of being wrong as it is wrong regarding the general truth of general statements. The resolution is negated. Thanks Pro, for a good Round 2. I'm looking forward to Round 3.
"General statements are generally true" is an ifalliable statement.

First, I would like to define the definitions for "truth" and "general" for this debate . http://www.merriam-webster.com... a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3: not confined by specialization or careful limitation 4: belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals : generic 5a : applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved : prevalent b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects 6: relating to, determined by, or concerned with main elements rather than limited details --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, with that out of the way I will lay out my defense. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "General statements are generally true" has two meanings. 1: The first meaning states the a comment made in general is a statement which is generally true in nature related to the whole of the being. Such as, saying all cats have tails is truth "in general" as the majority of cats have tails, while some breeds do not have tails. Thus the statement itself is false about all breeds of cats while being truthful about the general body of the species. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2: The second meaning protects it from a larger criticism of a generalized statement being false in nature. This meaning states a simple loophole. "General statements are GENERALLY true" implies that the whole class of general statements themselves is subject to occasional error. If I were to state that most stars are smaller then our sun, that would be a false generalization, as we know most stars are larger then our sun. I can then use the fail safe of "generally true" as that generalized statement was wrong, yet the body of all generalized statements is unaffected as there are or could be many more generalized statements which are correct.
"General statements are generally true" is an ifalliable statement.

I hear a lot of people knocking generalizations because a few of the group in question don't fit the generalized description. WELL I SAY PHOOEY! Generalizations are excellent ways to convey a quick idea or emotion without having to waste time explaining the few ways which it could be wrong, its the same reason why we round numbers. This debate will NOT be related to stereotypes or statistics related to popular generalizations, but a more philosophical statement regarding the very usage of a generalized statement being truth. That generalized statement, ladies and gentleman, is simple. Generalized statement are generally true. First round will be acceptance Second will be opening arguments Third will be rebuttals Lastly, third round will be closing statements. While this is my first time debating on this site, I have a RICH background in "argumentation" and am hoping to have a lively debate!
Homeschooling

I am glad we had this debate. I hope we both learned something. On to your points. Sheltered children: I understood that it wasn't that you claimed it would be better for kids to be completely sheltered. That is why I weighed the benefits of sheltering to the disadvantages as well as added in the pros and cons of socialization. Bullying: Pro didn't provide the source for their statistic of 6,000 childhood deaths due to bullying. But I can tell you from personal experience and vast research of the area that it is fairly accurate. However, it is extremely flawed. That statistic makes such a bold claim but does not add many other contributing factors into it. Things such as, poverty, sexuality, gender identity (whether or not you agree with it,) mental health, grades, family situation, possible abuse, and so on and so forth. As someone who went through some of the worst and treatment resistant depression and anxiety, I can tell you for a fact that it was not just the bullying that caused my multiple suicide attempts. Yes, anecdotal evidence is ultimately inconsequential, but I brought it up to explain how it could be many other things than bullying. Thank you for this debate, I had a great time!