BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Races have different IQ averages and well proven but hidden from public

the media does hide this and NEVER talks about it" I explained in my previous comment why the media does not talk about it. They are scared that people will misunderstand. But it is not being hidden in any way. You can even find a list of average IQ points of the different races. If they were trying to hide it, they would not spare it on the Internet. This means they just don't want anything to do with it. https://www.sciencedirect.com... It is a fact that races have different averages, and this difference is caused by brain structure -read the first page of the link if you want to see how this is-. My point is, if there even is a scientific book about it and the book is pretty accessible, this means that the topic is not being hidden or they are doing a pretty bad job at hiding it. You can argue that some sites admit that there is a difference in the race's IQ averages, but they refuse to accept that it is caused by genetics - biological structure (like this one: https://www.vox.com...). It is true that some sites do that, but they are still accepting the fact that the races have different IQ averages and that is what I am supposed to prove. I see no evidence of this topic trying to be hidden.
Races have different IQ averages and well proven but hidden from public

I agree with that. But yes I'M RIGHT.. the media does hide this and NEVER talks about it as far as it being hidden its available info on internet if u study it but most people are so naive they actually belive all races are the same in this area when its so obvious its not true if u study aff action etc school test scores... but yeh i think u made great points on the reality of this in general
Races have different IQ averages and well proven but hidden from public

Races do have different IQ averages but these are not hidden from public at all. I mean, could you find these things with a simple Google search if they were hidden from public? It is not hidden from the public, people just don't want to accept it. Men are more successful at some things, and women are more successful in others. But people think "equality" means every single person to have the same capabilities. This is just not true. Yeah people don't go out there screaming: "Hey! this race has a lower IQ average!" but that does not mean it is being hidden. They are just scared of people misunderstanding. There are more white people at the top than black people. The public sees this as discrimination. But in reality, no discrimination is being made. This does not mean a white person is smarter than a black person. It means there are more smart-white people than there are smart-black people. So, races do have different average IQ points but no it is not hidden from the public. And we need to remember, just because -generally- white people are more intelligent, that does not mean all black people are less intelligent. So you being black or white should not cause any problems as long as you are a smart guy.
Races have different IQ averages and well proven but hidden from public

Anybody with a brain and common sense realizes that not all races are the same. All the science has clearly shown that for example that white average iq is 101, black african av iq is 70.. east asian 105.. etc.. Google about it for once in your life. Also if all races are just as smart then why do blacks get the worst grades in usa EVERY SINGLE YEAR? and why do we have aff action which gives blacks extra points on Sat scores they did not earn to make things equal with asian and white sat scores.
Hair color has a huge effect in the teaching and learning process of both teachers and students

ayyyy Lmao For the same reason why you cannot wear certain articles of clothing. It could distract other students from their studies and could be considered disrupting the class. For example, If you dye your hair with bright, Obnoxious colors, That's not ordinary, People don't see that often, So you would generate a lot of attention. Attention that's not on the teacher teaching is a distraction. It's the same reason why there are dress codes. Now it varies from school to school, So I would need to read their policies to justify them further. And again it depends on the school. Maybe the school doesn't believe that it should represent students who have crazy hair colors. That it makes them look bad and if they have a bunch of clown heads running around it could negatively impact their image. You could make the same argument with "why do I have to wear a uniform? Don't I have the right to choose what I wear? It doesn't affect anything" when in reality it has a purpose. If everyone has the same clothes, Your peers can't ridicule your choice of clothing. Same thing with crazy dyes. If everyone has standard hair colors, You're likely not to run into people making fun of you for it. I could go into this further but I'm not entirely knowledgeable on school uniforms and their purpose. You also have to consider what parents want. If you are the first person to dye your hair the color of the rainbow, Its likely you'll inspire others. Some parents are against dying and now suddenly their child wants to because they saw someone at school doing it. Angry parents calling the school on "how could you allow our easily influenced children to be exposed to this? " This is a hypothetical but it is based in reality. Most if not all schools are in some way influenced by parents and their agendas so it should come to no surprise that if a group of parents band together against certain hair colors, The students can kiss it good bye. I seemed to have branched off so let me return to the central point. Hair color can have an effect on teaching unless the student population is desensitized to it. For example, If other students won't bully the people expressing their colors, Or become distracted in class talking about these hair colors. Because for the most part it can be seen as a distraction.
Education is the key to our counties future.

I need to clairify that Pros BOT is to prove that education will serve the future better than any other institution today, I will prove that it is not, that many other institutions are more essential. Rebuttal: Children are the Workers of Tommorow: Regardless of education, if National Debt and Unemployment rate are not fixed there will be no jobs for the children of tommorow, even if they all have shiny Harvard Certificates. A strong Economy, and the abolishment of national debt is the key to the future; education is not even possible if these things aren't met. Even today, with a population of competent educated adults we see that there are still enourmos problems, this goes to show that education does not fix the Nations Economic problems. A stron g Economy does not depend on mass education. A few smart educated people are needed. Only about 5% of every child needs an education for the well being of a country, the rest depends on what that small percent does with it. Education is not the key to the future, a strong economy run by a few intelligent people is. We will not be able to Compete with other Countries: Even though the US has a much lower rate of Education, why is it still much more prosperous than Japan or China? That is because the educated from other countries come here after they complete university to start a family and have a better life. Education is not needed in America, it can be imported from other countries. My only point: America has never done too well on the global scale for education, but the educated still flock to America so it will always be prosporous no matter what. Albert Einstein came to America from Germany, most of our sceintists are from Asia. Education is not the key to the future, America does not need to put educating its youth before all else, investments in Economy and Military have much larger weight on our future than education. You don't have to be smart to be a soldier, and that can be the job of the future American Youth, while our scientists come from other countires (this is already how it is today) Education is not the key to the future. -Vlad
Education is the key to our counties future.

Thank you for accepting. I think education will be the key to our countries sucsess because our children will be tommorows workers. The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics. How could we compete with other countries with these rankings. Each year, approximately 1.3 million students drop out of high school, 21 percent of them have shown to go to jail. and the rest of them on avrage urn 25,000 per year than there counterparts who did graduate. If we have an uneducated and poor country then we will not be able to compete with other countries. We will still have problems in unemployment and goverment and if you think we arn't suited for it now, then in 30 years we will be as well suited as some of the worst countries. In the 1970's, Hong Kong had the #1 education ranking and now that the kids back then are working they have the #2 ranked economy. Do you see the relation. In the long run, you need education. We will be unperpared for the real world and our country will strugle to survive in the modern world.
Be it Resolved: Morning represents an ove-representation of the clock dial.

Thank You awesomeperson for presenting your well thought out and eloquent response. I welcome the challenge of your valid arguments. I do feel however that your arguments failed to address the over-representation of the term "Morning" on the clock dial. From 12:01 am until 11:59 am may very well be the most abundant time designated by the majority of people in western society to "prepare for the day", if one were to define sleeping as a preparation for anything. but this argument does not address why a full 12 hours are dedicated to "Morning" and smaller proportions of time are dedicated to, Afternoon (12:01 P.M. until 5:00 P.M.), Evening (5:01 P.M. until 8:00 P.M.), and Night (8:01 P.M. until Midnight) *See Reference #1* It is my contention that the screaming mother could more effectively make her point to the drunken teenager coming home at 3:30 am by belting out the words "Do you know what time it is? it's 3:30 at night!" rather than "3:30 in the morning" being as the term morning infers a period of time after sunrise *See second definition in reference #2* My argument is that an even distribution of time periods would remove any ambiguity as to what part of the day it really is. something to the effect of 4 equal periods representing different parts of the day 5:01 am - 10:59 am "Morning", 11:01 am - 4:59 pm "Afternoon", 5:01 pm - 10:59 pm "Evening, and 11:01 pm - 4:59 am "Night" This way the final word echoing around in the poor drunken teenagers head is "Night!" Besides, it's not fair to the other time periods that "Morning" gets the lions share of the clock dial. If anything, "Morning" deserves less of a share of the clock dial being as it can be the least productive part of the day. (not quite awake, etc.) Reference #1 http://www.say-it-in-english.com... Reference #2 http://dictionary.reference.com... Thank you for challenging my position.
Be it Resolved: Morning represents an ove-representation of the clock dial.

Morning (12:01 am - 11:59 am) is actually a very useful and practical way to segment the day. The clock division you mention is currently set up to divide the day into common activity periods. Morning - represents the part of the clock which includes preparation for the day. (sleeping, preparing for work, etc.) Afternoon - represents the work section of the day. Evening - represents the period of the day which most other non-work related activities take place. Night - represents the time which people generally retire from major activities. While the actual times which these activities take place vary greatly from person to person, these divisions mark the periods when the majority of the population is partaking in the specified activity. These four states are the only divisions which can be guaranteed for almost every person in the world, which is why they are so universally used. While most people do not sleep and prepare for the day from exactly 12:01 - 11:59, it is, in fact, a decent estimation for the average person.
Be it Resolved: Morning represents an ove-representation of the clock dial.

Hello fellow appreciators of intellectual discourse. This is my first attempt at debate here at DDO. Thank you for your kind consideration of my inexperience.I will start out with a softball discussion on why I feel that "Morning" represents an overabundance of the clock dial as opposed to afternoon, evening, or night.I feel that 12:01 am until 11:59 am (a full 12 hours) is just to much to classify as one time period. after all, afternoon only lasts for 6 hours (12:01 pm - 5:59 pm) and who knows how long evening lasts, let alone night? Therefore I put up for debate, Be it Resolved: Morning represents an over-representation of the clock dial.Thanks s again for your patience with a noob.
interlinking of rivers will solve the water crisis in India

actually i didnt know about it as i am new to this site. In India water crisis is an acute problem.India is facing water crises in many parts of the country despite that it has adequate water in order to meet the growing demand and needs of the increasing population ,as india is 2nd largest populated countries and soon india waill beat China by 2050.And the growing population is putting a great strain on wter resources.India is one of the rapidly growing economy and has a large agricultural sector makes India supply of water even thinner. The aim behing interlinking of rivers is that if rivers are interlinking is that water is transferred from surplus river to defict river and in this way the rivers having surplus water will also be prevented from various disasters.The idea of interlinking is no knew as during the mughal period the yamuna and agra canal were constructed.In this way water from these canals came from himalyas and made available to various states like Punjab,Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. And it will be easy for generation Of electricity(hydroelectricity)in many parts of india,navigation and flood prevention.India has also designed NRLP(National River Linking Project).
interlinking of rivers will solve the water crisis in India

My opponent's argument has been plagiarized from following 3 sources:1. Preface to the book http://books.google.co.in...2. Times of India article http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...3. Tribune article http://www.tribuneindia.com...Copy pasting someone else's work and pretending it is your own is know as plagiarism. This is taken very seriously by this community. Since my opponent is new here, it is possible he did not know about this.I would request voters to award me the concduct point becuase of plagiarism. I can claim a technical victory at this point, however I would like to really debate this interesting and relevant issue which needs to be debated. I would encourage my opponent to present his own arguments in next round. This is a 5 round debate, and we can have an interesting debate even if we ignore this round.In the meantime, I see no purpose in trying to debate against newspapers and book.
The M1 Garand was better than -------

specifications: fires: 7.62 x 63 mm round weight: 9.5 lb (4.31 kg) to 11.6 lb (5.3 kg) length: 43.5 in (1,104.9 mm) barrel length: 24 in (609.6 mm) muzzle velocity: 2,800 ft/s (853 m/s) effective range: 440 yd (402 m) feed system: 8-round "en bloc" clip internal magazine Action: Gas-operated, rotating bolt sights: Aperture rear sight, barleycorn-type front sight The M1 Garand was produced from 1936-1957 and was the first semi-automatic rifle to be issued to any nations infantry. The M1 Garand gave America an advantage because German, Italian and Japanese soldiers were armed with bolt action rifles. The M1 Garand is fairly simple to operate, you put a block clip in then when pressure is released on the cartridge the bolt slides forward. More info after my opponents rebutle. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The M1 Garand was better than -------

The M1 Garand was the best rifle of its time. My opponent may pick another rifle that is from the same time period as the M1 Garand. The rifle doesn't have to be from the U.S it can be from any country. The rifle doesn't have to be the same caliber or specifications as the M1 Garand. My opponent and I may not vote for ourselves in this debate if we do the other person must get the better conduct vote.
The M1 Garand was better than -------

I have shot both the M1 and Gewehr and I have to say I do prefer the M1 "Actually 2 cons in 1 but its both because of the magazine clip so why not? The first con is that the magazine MUST be emptied by firing all 8 shots before you could eject the clip. This is bad as you may need more ammo for the coming time, you are forced to fire the shots left just to eject it." 1.This problem was later fixed with a button on the side that would force the bolt back and hold the clip in place for topping off the clip. 2.During WW11 most weapons were made to be produced quickly and the M1 was no different with over 6 million produced. With any weaponry you are to have these such problem even today with modern technology. 3.Most soldiers would keep the bolt shut on the M1 if it were not in use at the time so that they could prevent such things from happening. The M1 could easily be field striped if needed by any soldier to clean the rifle. 4. The rifle may have been heavy but the M1 was produced between 1936 and 1957 if the U.S saw a flaw in the rifle was too heavy it would have been replaced. You can't deny the power of the M1 and the fast loading that comes with it. The Japanese had taught there soldiers to listen to the alleged pinging sound to know when they were empty. The time the Japanese had to fire was 5 seconds or less in order to get a shot off. There were two variant sniper rifles the M1C and M1D they were more widely used in Korea and Vietnam. The difference is the mounting the M1D was a simple one ring field mount and the M1C required drilling and taping. The M1C was officaly adopted in 1951 as the army's official sniper rifle. The M1C proved to be very effective in Vietnam. The M1 was also semi-automatic and takes less time to load than the Gewehr does. I have fired both these weapons and although the M1 carrys less in a clip it is more powerful. I ask the voters to look at the arguments and put yourself in a soldiers shoes and then vote PRO for "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised" by George S. Patton http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The M1 Garand was better than -------

Haha and so I thank back my opponent for such gracious respectation. (Putted a lot of effort in creating this sentence) specifications: fires: 7.92x57mm round weight: 4.1 KG length: 1130mm barrel length: 546mm (21.5 inches) muzzle velocity: 2328 ft/s (775 m/s) effective range: 500m, 800m with scope feed system: 10-round detachable box magazine action: gas-operated sights: iron sights, Zf42 optical crosshair sight As you see from the specifications, the gewehr43 already defeated the M1 Garand in term of effectiveness. Its lighter, has more rounds in a magazine and its effective at longer ranges, more then the M1 Garand does. We continue from the usage and its con and pro and since im con, im gonna list all the cons of your weapon while putting my pros. Arguments why M1 Garand isnt the best: 1. Actually 2 cons in 1 but its both because of the magazine clip so why not? The first con is that the magazine MUST be emptied by firing all 8 shots before you could eject the clip. This is bad as you may need more ammo for the coming time, you are forced to fire the shots left just to eject it. Even worse is when you are hiding and couldn't reload where upon firing a shot would cause attention. The second con is the sound that a gun makes while ejecting the magazine. It makes a chirping sound, warning your enemy that your gun is empty, something thats also bad for you. 2. The handguards are weak as we know. Front handguards has been known to break easily and the rear handguard has a bit more protection then the front, but its hard to replace. 3. Dirts could easily get stuck in the rifle, jamming the gun entirely, rendering it useless. 4. Its too heavy for a rifle and that presents a problem for the soldiers using this weapon. My arguments why Gewehr43 is superior to your M1 Garand: 1. Its semi automatic and it has 10-round clips. On the plus side, you can eject the clip whenever you want! 2. All guns were made with scope rails, so they can become snipers if you attach a scope. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.panzergrenadier.net...
Abortion

Response to R4: 1) No, I made an extreme example in order to show the logical end of your argument, because it was stupid. Killing is destruction of life, just as arson is destruction of buildings. If someone burned your house down, you would most certainly not let them get away with it, especially with a claim as incoherent as 'I didn't destroy it, I just shortened it's existence!' Destruction means to end forever. Killing is destruction of life. 2) Yes, you do. If they did not have your consent, then you would be against it. If you are against it, you're stating a moral preference. Because morals must be universal, that means that you would also be against the murder of others. If you consented to your own killing, then it would be morally fine, but once again, I said non-consensual killing. 3) I put forward a definition. You didn't rebut it. You tried to say that you did, but you didn't. There was no counter-definition, no source cited, just your words. A human is a member of Homo Sapiens. Fetuses are Homo Sapiens. Therefore, we must give fetuses the same moral treatment we do humans, ie not murder them. 4) No, but society isn't the people, it's their interaction, as you yourself said. You can't touch social interaction. For the second part, you did get me, that was a typo. Still, you haven't shown any sort of evidence to support abortion being beneficial. And, even if you did, it wouldn't matter, because this is, as it must be, an argument over the morality of the issue. 5) Yes you do. You exhibit moral preferences all the time. Not wanting to be stolen from, killed, beaten, etc. If you have these preferences, but don't respect the right of others to have them, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Or, at the very least, irrational. Neither of which says very much for your argument. Conclusion: Abortion is wrong because fetuses are humans, and it is wrong to commit murder. My opponent has failed to offer any real rebuttal to this.
Abortion

Response to my opponent's Round 3:My opponent has offended my comprehension because he doesn't like his own conclusion.(My guess is that he made unwritten premise "arsonist is destroying the building", but this only falsifies his own definition of destruction; I however prefer to respond to what is written rather than to what is meant)I know the definitions of words I use, I said I don't think it would be immoral for someone to kill me without my consent.I would not be beneficial for me if someone killed me, but that doesn't imply it is immoral."None of what you said" is certainly not a rebuttal. The rest of my opponent's 2) is same statement as I previously rebutted. Rebuttal of premise can not be rebutted with the same premise.You can certainly see, touch and smell fellow members of the society(citizens)."show me some data, even just correlational, that suggests that abortion is harmful to society"- My opponent is the one who should be arguing that. I am arguing that abortion is beneficial to society.I don't consider anything to be immoral. I do what I think is beneficial to the things I love, and I don't do what I think is harmful to the things I love.Conclusion:My opponent rebutted none of my arguments, while I rebbutted his only one.