BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harvard is better than Georgetown.

Harvard also caters to its students. Below is an article from The Week Daily (. http://www.theweekdaily.com...) "How Muslims fit at Harvard What happened Muslim practices at Harvard University have ignited a debate over religious tolerance on campus. The controversy began in February after the university closed a gym to men for several hours a week so Muslim women could exercise without violating a religious requirement to wear modest dress in mixed company. The administration also allowed the broadcast of the Muslim call to prayer to be broadcast on campus during Islam Awareness Week. Opinion artlicles in the student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, denounced both policies, saying they stepped on the rights of non-Muslims. (The New York Times, free registration) What the commentators said "Get a grip," said Ruth Marcus in The Washington Post (free registration). It is perfectly reasonable to "set aside a few off-peak hours" so that women who feel uncomfortable wearing workout clothes in public can exercise in peace. And "it's not offensive to have the call to prayer echoing across Harvard Yard, any more than it is to ring church bells or erect a giant menorah there. " This is so typical of the "wave of arrogance sweeping into America with the wave of Muslim immigrants and students," said Georgie Anne Geyer in Yahoo! News. Muslim newcomers and visitors almost universally decline to show "respect or even a minimal liking for America or American customs," yet we're the ones who are in the wrong if we stand up for our own "religious, social and political customs. " The clash at Harvard is only the beginning, as the clash with Islam will only grow "until America and Europe regain their voices and their self-respect. " Harvard's nondiscrimination policy got it into this pickle, said Harvard computer science professor Harry Lewis in The Boston Globe (free registration). The university is so committed to this philosophy that it won't allow ROTC on campus because the military's position on sexual orientation violates it. But a school that accomodates "conservative Muslim women" while denying cadets the same courtesy is letting "politics determine what forms of discrimination are inoffensive," and "that is not what Harvard should be teaching. " Calm down, everyone, said Ana Veciana-Suarez in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Set aside a separate room to give the Muslim women privacy and everybody will be happy. "
Harvard is better than Georgetown.

There are several reasons why Harvard University is better than Georgetown University The first is that last year Harvard University received 20,987 applications. They accepted 2,095 new freshmen. This gives them an acceptance rate of 9.98% and it is common knowledge that the more students a college turns away, the better and more respectable the college is. The next reason is that there really is not a party scene at Harvard University. This allows students to work without the distraction of the constant, wild parties that take place in our nations capital. Also, Harvard is located in a safe town in New England. Little crime happens there. This allows students to move about freely without worrying about their safety. My final argument is that Harvard University in Cambridge, MA is an Ivy League College. Ivy League is the way to go. It is more respected, more known, and more talked about.
Public Schools in Britain Shouldn't be part of a Certain Religion

The morality promoted in Confucianism consist of general values which are applicable to mostly everyone (for the few conflicting values which it has, the promotion of tolerance makes up for this). All Britain would have to do is run a public campaign flaunting the ideas of this religion, so that parents would feel comfortable with sending their children to public schools. Once parents are aware of what kind of religion this is, they would be more willing to send their children to public schools.
Public Schools in Britain Shouldn't be part of a Certain Religion

If Confucianism is to be embraced as a religion in schools, whats to stop parents from being deterred completely because the schooling system wants/encourages children to follow a certain religion? even if a different religion was to be adopted in schools,many parents still wont want to send their children to a religious public school. Parents are likely to either spend money and time on home-tutoring or pay extortionate amounts to send their children to unreligious private schools further away.
Public Schools in Britain Shouldn't be part of a Certain Religion

I nominate Confucianism as being A certain religion which should be embraced. 1) Universal ethical values: Hsiao: love within the family: love of parents for their children and of children for their parents Yi: righteousness Xin: honesty and trustworthiness Jen: benevolence, humaneness towards other 2) Due to "jen", we can note that tolerance is upheld. Thus, people of different religions could speak their minds at their leisure. This renders all 3 of Pro's problems as non-applicable
Marxism needs to be retried

that would be impossible you need the knowledge to do the jobs you can't be a farmer the first 3 hours and then 3 hours a architect you need the knowledge for it your world works on a small scale, but not on a big one you need persons whit one job just because of the big work load truck drivers are the best examples it can take hours to drive from point a to b and that what unloading the cargo. Also, if every one joins the fight thenwho will provide food will they go 3 hours to war and then go back to the farm and then again to war your army would starve? also about the teacher treu thy were religious leaders, but remember the education was only for the rich because of the small number of priests also they would influence their believes whit their teaching
Marxism needs to be retried

What if people could have more than one job? Think about it. The 10 fishermen could catch 4 fish and still control the ship. The captain might not even be needed with a good crew. Same goes with food suppliers like farmers, they could harvest the wheat and drive the truck in the same day. If the glorious nation of Arstotzka is attacked by evil Kolechians every farmer, fisherman, miner, etc. could grab a gun and defend their motherland before going back to whatever they were doing. Education during ancient times were done by religious figures who obviously were not primarily teachers. If I lived in this Marxist utopia I could be an oil fracker from 7 to noon while being a repairman from 1 to midnight. And immigrants could go anywhere, they could drive to neighboring countries or fly to first world economic powerhouses. Fights and drives could be provided by miners doing their alternative jobs. Of course, it would be miles cheaper and easier to simply persuade the people with propaganda.
Marxism needs to be retried

Yes, true, but there is the problem you have too little resource for it to give the same amount to everyone else in your argument you stated if we have 10 fishermen that catch 4 fish each but what about persons that don't give something directly back, but they are needed like the persons working in logistics (truck driver, a captain of a ship and go on) or scientist, teachers, soldiers they are needed, but they don't contribute to the pool of recourses only consuming it so you will have a shortage of food because of it (and you need those people for a working country) now about the second part: immigration could work but then the living standard need to be higher than in other countries in depends: that would create a very bloody war where most likely the rebels would lose or you must send our troops for our glorious nation of Arstotzka to support them and as last propaganda yes that could work but again your living standards needs to be better than the other country to have a efect
Marxism needs to be retried

Yes, there could be a resource problem. However, this could be countered by people doing the same and necessary amount of work in order to maintain a proper amount of food and shelter. You said that 10 pieces of fish shared among 20 people was too little. That is true, but if each of those 20 people became fishermen and brought in 2 fish each everyday we would not have that problem. Or if 10 of those people brought in 4 fish each day and the other 10 went to collect and filter 2 buckets of water each day then everybody would have 2 fish and a bucket of water every night. Trade with other countries is an option as well. As for people not wanting a communist revolution, there are a few ways to approach this. Immigration, independence and propaganda are all things that are available in order to please those who wish something different become of their home.
Marxism needs to be retried

True, but it's not so bad like ww2 Germany or ww2 Russia, where the oppression and hunger was so big that it exploded in a radical movement for change did you read my comment?Anyway, here it the problem your forgetting human greed and the magnitude of recourses needed to keep every one happy even if you gave every one the same amount of food it would not work if you have 10 fish and 20 people, every one get a half of the fish, but that too little what I mean is that there are simply too little resources for a big pipeline the sustain itself and be happy also some families need more like a family whit Children need more fish so the children can grow, but you can't do that you must still give the same amount to every one see that what I mean to take control Artyom needs to seize power and like you said the issues way is by force they did that already in the soviet revolution by killing hunderde a thousand people you must never forget there are other people who think differently than you
Marxism needs to be retried

Alright, so first off I would like to state that many modern day countries are facing oppressive governments, high crime and depression. Marxism can fix this. If a nation of people get the same amount of food and water as each other, there will be no question on governmental favoritism and nobody will be treated worse than anybody else. This can prevent the lower class of criminals forming, as most criminal activity is just people trying to pay for survival. If all they need to survive is given to them, they would not need to get it by force. Now about Artyom. There are many ways Artyom can seize power. There is the political party way of course, but that requires many months of hard work and dedication which uses valuable time. However, another way Artyom could gain control is by force. If enough people join together in true comradeship, this oppressive government could be overthrown and reinstated as a Marxist society. This revolution could be backed by other Communist societies.
Marxism needs to be retried

So first of all I will introduce myself, I am aligned and I will be your debate partner I hope we will have a good debate also sorry if I make spelling mistakes I am not a native English speaker but I will try my best .^^ So my opinion about Marxism is a downright no! Now you"re wondering why it could not work" Yes, it could work in a perfect world, but face it, it isn"t one, so I will take all you"re your rules in account expect one human greed, because if you left that out then yeah Marxism would work but there is still other things to consider. So we will imagine there is a group of people (about 10 million, for example) that want to follow a person like Lenin we will call him Artyom for now so we could go 2 ways with this Artyom is a leader of our glorious nation of Arstotzka or he is a party leader. First scenario party leader: Artyom would need a considerable time to rise to power like Lenin did, but for that to happen, he would need a big depression or the quality of life
Marxism needs to be retried

Many nations have tried communism but none have really turned out all that well. In my opinion, Mao and Stalin were in no way communist. Now I know Marxism could be difficult to achieve due to natural human greed but what if there were a group of people who were completely willing to follow the ways of Marx? What if there was a modern day Lenin with supporters? Marxism has been achieved on small scales, so why don't we try and get it on the big scale?
God is necessary for objective metaphysical truths to exist.

God shot his stuff all through galactic waves. No spot gots more or less. Yo telescope gots a lens cap on it. You can't see cuz yo blind pathetic azz is wreck'd. Logic? God ain't no mathematical equation. You gots mind-mud, youngsta. You hustle'n yo dammed self, cuz God won't never let you hustle him. Yo pantry is empty and you think God in it. Nah.
God is necessary for objective metaphysical truths to exist.

Once again my opponent has present contradictory and incoherent arguments for his position. ". God ain't no object." I agree, which is why you can"t use physical means to prove him and why you need to use metaphysical means. However wouldn't"t "galactic vibrations" be an object? SO you are trying to measure God, that you admit isn"t an object, with something that is? Now if that"s not what it is explain to me what it is. If you don"t want me to use logic, then we can"t have any sort of conversation since logic is the basis for understanding anything. I wish I had more to respond to but my opponent hasn"t given me much to work with. Since my opponent hasn"t come close to refuting anything, my points from last round still stand.
God is necessary for objective metaphysical truths to exist.

Check it. God ain't no object. Objectivity gots no key to God's door. Nah! You gots to feel for galactic vibrations. He put that shitt all up in contemplative rays. There must be a stimulation for revelation. Alright withit. Now you shut that out and go grab'n for logic to breastfeed. Nah! You lose every time. Nunthat floats a thought past the carnal barrier. I'm talk'n bout the wall you trump-up in yo mind. Justice do its own thang. It gots no leash. Communicative dictation, you feel me. That don't need no trick. Don't try to flip.
God is necessary for objective metaphysical truths to exist.

My opponent"s point is rather confusing and a bit contradictory. I will try to answer his statements, and translate from Ebonics as necessary. I will tell him, if your purpose is to confuse me, then that won"t help you as it won"t help your case. I am not sure what he means by "poetic electricity". He seems to be describing a personal experience he had that proves to him God exists. The he goes on to say that we can"t trust something objectively, which are illusions and rather should trust our subjective experiences (at least I think that"s his argument). So I will start with explaining why we must be able to prove something objectively. Firstly, morality must be objective otherwise we have no right to complain about what anyone else does and there would be no such thing as justice. Similarly, with logic, it too cannot be subjective otherwise it would be of no use to anyone and we wouldn't"t be able to communicate ideas. However, objective morality or logic, cannot exist if it comes out of a human mind, which is subjective. So that leaves the only possible explanation as a higher mind, one that is greater than the entire universe. We can call such a greater mind God. So then back to my opponent"s argument, if we can"t trust objective ideas, then we can"t know anything and therefore he can"t even know his own story to be true. The only way we can know metaphysical ideas objectively is if they originate from a greater mind, therefore the only mind great enough would be the mind of God. Thanks again and I look forward to the next round.
God is necessary for objective metaphysical truths to exist.

Hell nah. Yous mix'n two thangs togeth'a that don't belong. The only way to know God's truth is by poetic electricity. You wrong, all the dammed way wrong. Up, down, and sideways wrong. Alright withit.Check it. I heard crackl'n sounds and air pop'n divisions. A blue laser busted through all that bizzness. Sight and sound was separated into far away dimensions. There was a funnel of loudness in my ear.It swirl'd for hours. Mysteryness was banging my ear drum in a vicious mann'a. I scream'd out, but my scream wrestle'd with the power. Then a burst of fire show'd up and stole my perception. A massive voice communicated itself to my brain. My mind heard thoughts of God.You can't achieve nunthat with objective illusions.
God is necessary for objective metaphysical truths to exist.

I will argue that God is necessary for objective truths to exist. However this needs clarification. I am not saying you can't know the sky is blue without God, but rather I am talking about metaphysical truths, like logic and morality. So in that I am also arguing that metaphysical truths must necessarily exist. First round is only to accept, no new arguments the final round, it wouldn't be fair. I look forward to the debate.
it is impossible for an infinite amount of universes to exist

i find your first 2 points ultimately irrelevant. this isnt a debate about whether or not other universes can exist. in fact, i agree that multiple universes may exist, just not an infinite amount of them.in your 3rd point, you make two relevant claims, but dont offer a justification for either: 1. "there may be an infinite number of universes" 2. "there is an infinite number of possibilities and therefore an infinite number of universes." -ive already proven how 1 is impossible, and would like to see you find a hole in that proof. -as for 2, you havent given proof for it, and if i have proven a statement that contradicts 2, then 2 must not be true.
it is impossible for an infinite amount of universes to exist

When asked the question: Is it possible for an infinite number of universes to exist? I must say yes. Since my opponent did not provide any I will give some definitions that might be needed in the debate or argument. Universe- the whole body of things and phenomena observed [1] Multiple- consisting of, including, or involving more than one [2] Infinite- extending indefinitely or endless [3] Exist- to have real being whether material or spiritual [4] By these definitions I present my Argument. 1. How big is a Universe? 2. Would it be possible to know? 3. Can "infinite" explain it? Contention 1: How big is a Universe? When asked this question I say a universe is about as far as a human, with the help of a machine or via the naked eye, can see. My definition say that a universe is the whole body of things and phenomena observed. In prehistoric time the universe extended just to the stars. When man went into space the universe extended itself further. Since the univers is only as big as a human may see or imagine then there is no way in telling if the universe has an end. Picture this: In the year 3000 humans have visited the end of our galaxy. We invented teleportation to take us to other galaxies. While exploring these other galaxies we go as far as we can. Eventually the universe just. .. stops. We have no where else to go. Compared to the universe we are nothing but atoms. Therefore there is no telling what is beyond the end. Maybe, another universe. Beyond that one, another. Technically there is no way to define a universe and therefore there could be more of them. Contention 2: Would it be possible to know if there were more universes? There would be no way of telling an individual or group of people if there are more universes. If there are then some may be different. The only theorized way of knowing of alternate dimensions is via the multiverse. [5] If we were to find the multiverse then i could definitely tell you there are Multiple Universes (hence the name multiverse). But as I cannot, then I am technically arguing a theory and not a statement. Contention 3: Can "infinite" explain how many dimensions there may be? I conclude that, yes, there amy be an infinite number of universes. According to the multiverse theory I am a talking jellyfish made out of peppermint that speaks gibberish right now in another dimension. Dinosaurs could also be alive. Then again the change could be as simple as JFK wasn't assassinated. There is an infinite number of possibilities and therefore an infinite number of universes. As I am running out of characters I will conclude my argument by saying good luck to my opponent. I hope you can see from my argument that there is a possibility of infinite universes. Thank you and vote Con. Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
it is impossible for an infinite amount of universes to exist

consider the following premises:1. no matter how many of something exists, there could always be one more. 2. an infinite number of universes existin order for the above premises to be true you must conclude that you could have more than an infinite amount of universes. this is a contradiction because there is no such thing as "more than infinity". therefore, we can conclude that premise 1 and/or premise 2 is false. premise 1 is undeniable (as it is merely saying you can add 1 to any amount), therefore, premise 2 must be false.
The Minimum Wage Is a Sound Economic Policy

As agreed, I will not present rebuttals of his R2 arguments in this round, but will only build my affirmative case. Burden of Proof In this debate, my BoP is simply to prove that one minimum wage law enacted by the federal government is either financially strong, secure, or reliable. Con must prove that any minimum wage law enacted by the federal government is neither financially strong, secure, nor reliable. I am not obligated to defend any raise in the minimum wage, in fact I can advocate for a lower minimum wage and still uphold my burden of proof, which is to justify the existence of a minimum wage that is financially sound. Pro Case Unlike Con’s long and heavily sourced case, mine is extremely simple because the economic rationale behind the existence of the minimum wage is basically common sense. As inflation rises, the cost of living will rise, but wages will not necessarily rise. This translates to a less economic activity because as workers make less money compared to how much it costs them to live, they will be less likely to spend money. Something that works against economic activity declining is certainly a sound economic policy. Thus, it is necessary for the level of wages to be adjusted every so often in order to maintain economic growth. That’s it. I hope the audience will appreciate my keeping this simple argument short and simple rather than overstating my case, and will not hold this fact against me. Back to you, Con.
The Minimum Wage Is a Sound Economic Policy

You are the best, most free person available who's wanted this. Full Resolution:The Minimum Wage Is a Sound Economic Policy.I will be negating this resolution.BoP is shared. Definitions: The Minimum Wage: "The smallest hourly wage that an employee may be paid as mandated by federal law."[1] Sound: "Financially strong, secure, or reliable."[2] Economic Policy: "The actions taken by a government to influence its economy."[3]Rules:1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources:[1]: http://www.investorwords.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://www.investorwords.com...