BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'White' flight stems from subliminal guilt and a desire to have an unjust advantage

This debate really boils down to this: Dose the statistical numbers of whites leaving areas of residence when minorities take up a large residence in that residential area steam from ONLY from a causal effect of subliminal guilt regarding the past and present systems of racism and discrimination, propagated and maintained by their to avoidance of the issue and their ancestors? I have shown that the economic status of the people involved and of the economic development of the residential areas they are moving to also have causal effect on this issue. My opponent has not stated any rebuttal to this point. Furthermore my opponent has used less than reputable sources, and taken sources out of the context they were written. My opponent as then just copy and pasted most of their argument rather than the normal process of making an argument of your own and quoting small sections in your debate. To my opponent if you are white and moved, or moved your kids to another school, and that move just happens to have more white people that it is about racism. It cannot be you just liked that house, that a school was a better fit for your child, that it was closer to your work, or any number of other reasons you might have for making that move.
'White' flight stems from subliminal guilt and a desire to have an unjust advantage

I will be argument that what known as “white flight” as several reason and is not a simple as my opponent claims. “White flight”-the move of white city-dwellers to the suburbs to escape the influx of minorities. Reasons include, but not limited to, the following: 1. Intentional racism2. Unintentional racism3. Some peoples preference to live in suburbs4. Economic opportunities that having to do with a person’s race.5. Economic opportunities that do not have anything to do with a person’s race.
'White' flight stems from subliminal guilt and a desire to have an unjust advantage

The scenario of 'white' flight that is manifested in the United States stems from the subliminal guilt of non-melaninated peoples regarding the past and present systems of racial and economic bias and discrimination developed,propagated and maintained by the evaders and their ancestors. The scenario also emanates from a desire of those evaders to procure and maintain an unjust and inequitable advantage in areas such as housing, schooling, etc.. Shared Bop Con will have to show that 'white' flight stems from a cause not aforementioned.
guys are such jerks that they lie to your face.

My opponent didn't post his round 2 argument' here's mine.Anyone can lie - My opponent stated that guys are jerks and lie to a girl's face even if she did nothing wrong. For starters anybody can lie to anyone, no matter who they are or what they look like. For example there's this lady named Farrah Fawcett and she had cheated on a man for 11 years without him even finding out, and over the last 20 years the number of women cheating has increased dramatically. sorry for getting a little off topis but I wanted to point that out.Women lie more than men 75 percent of women lie about how much money they spend. More than 60 percent of women have cheated ont there husband. Even after her divorce she didn't even tell the truth. Farrah Fawcet. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Second source. http://business.time.com...
School vouchers

But what would determine the competition? And would those who "lost" in the competition be stuck in even more underfunded schools? I understand you are interested in the idea of vouchers but I don't think you understand what they would entail, or at least the type you're implying. The difference between private schools and public schools is mostly that private schools have a lot more money, so instead of offering The $20,000 for one student to go to a private school, why don't we give the money to public schools? Vouchers would exclude all the people that the school system really needs to help, and if the government were ever to actually spend that much, it'd be much more beneficial to go to public schools.
School vouchers

Please provide evidence that "sinking money" into schools doesn't help. Better funding can provide new textbooks, computers, and an overall improved learning environment. If you see the difference between an inner city public school and a rich community's public school, you will know it is money that is the issue-- private schools function well because of the money they have, and public schools that do poorly are severly underfunded. Teachers at some schools get paid essentially $10 an hour for while their at school and a lot of unpaid hours for their grading and other work they do outside of the building. Increasing salaries would increase moral and therfore how they're teaching. Along with that, many text books are outdated (my textbook in public school for World History had a map of the Soviet Union) and made to appeal to sometimes entirely different generations. Public schools lack new technology-- they need more computer labs and better libraries. I'm afraid I don't see your logic. In your opening statements you said good students would be able to leave bad schools, and now you're saying that bad students would put into the private schools. Private schools can still reject bad students, so closing schools that aren't doing well will not be effective and just overcrowd the other public schools. In the end you would be dooming the students who are already struggling even more.
homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else, including marriage

I cannot show that you are wrong, and you have a point: until they do in fact find that gene, I cannot use that argument. However, realize that they may find that gene tomorrow, and if you plan on keeping that stance, I would be worried, if I were you, that you might find yourself in a much less stable position on this subject. I'll assume from here on in that homosexuals are gay by choice. What good does it do to smother the rights of homosexuals? We cannot hope to change them, I can assure you of that, and while there may not yet be a gay gene, their homosexual tendencies are very deeply ingrained and cannot be affected by politics. There is a small percentage of people who are more of the "confused" type, who could be socially maneuvered into a heterosexual lifestyle, but most homosexuals I know are gay all the way through the bone. If we cannot hope to change these people, then what good does it do to oppress them? Would you like to argue that they are not oppressed? Well then why don't you look at the famous supreme court case bowers v hardwick from 1986. Read that and then tell me homosexuals are not oppressed... I would like to hear your defense. Sodomy laws, which could place homosexuals in jail for very long prison sentences, have since (recently) been ruled unconstitutional, however the job here is far from over. Homosexuals are PEOPLE just like you and I. We do not have the right to pass judgement over them. They have a right to start a family, just like everybody else. But what about the family values arguments? First of all, family values arguments are complete and utter nonsense. Everyone's family values are different, and there is no way you can justify making family values into laws. What about the children who see two men get married, and think that is OK? Well, personally, I am heterosexual, and no matter what age I am at, whether it be 5 years old, 12 years old, or 26, there is no way I am going to see two guys get together and make me want to try it. I think there are plenty of completely heterosexual guys and girls out there, and nothing is going to change their sexual orientation. The same goes for homosexuals; nothing is going to change their sexual orientation. So why don't we just let them be? What business is it of ours, how they live their lives? There are religious arguments against homosexuals, and I am not religious so I can't really address those. I can say that religion is personal; you can't use religious arguments to pass laws, oppress people, or do ANYTHING AT ALL THAT AFFECTS ANYONE ELSE. Religion is simply philosophy, perhaps with a dash of superstition. The only arguments that hold any water in law and debate are arguments based on facts. When Christians try to affect homosexuals with arguments based on their personal, religious beliefs, they are being completely immoral. The worst human rights violations in the world are the result of religion affecting politics.
Military conscription is unjust.

First, I'll give the Lwerd the benefit of the doubt on the forfeiture situation. For all purposes, lets just assume he posted his argument in time. V/C- The lwerd basically concedes that she should be dropped for her lack of V/C. Her only argument is that in OTHER rounds, PRO may not be dropped for doing the same thing. I argue that this is absolutely ridiculous and is an unfair argument. I am not here to create a universal way of judging. My goal is to pursuade the judges of the issues in this particular debate. What goes on in other debates is absolutely irrelevant. Rights- 1. I am saying that military conscription is necessary in a nation without a voluntary army. 2/3. I am not advocating conscription in all times. I am saying that in times of war when a nation is threatened, conscription is neccessary/just. 4. That doesn't neccesarily mean they wont either. Cost- Lwerd never answers the point in which I say cost never amounts to human lives. No matter how much money it costs to look into if a person is well-bodied, it will eventually lead to an effective military. Social Impact- Im saying that in certain countries where nationalism isnt high there would not be a sufficient amount of volunteers. Also, if you buy this argument from the lwerd, see how it shows why the draft is not neccessary not that it is unjust. V/C- By showing why my criterion is bad, the lwerd has lost the round. I have alreadyt stated and the lwerd has failed to respond to the fact that all of his ofense needs to be linked to my standards. This is because he didnt present standards in his original case. None of his offense was linked to my standards. This means that none of his offense matter. Voting- My case, as weak as it may be, according to the lwerd is cleanly linked to my standards and is the only thing you have to vote on. The lwerd drops all of it in his last speech. Claim- The Negative Debater Better Protects Innocent Citizens Warrant- (Example) The US gets greedy for oil. They decide to invade a huge oil producer: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a weak army and is a developing nation meaning that supplies are low. If the US attacks the weak army, more people will die than if the US attacked a strong army. In this case military conscription is needed and thus just. Impact- Conscription Protects more innocent people. This is linked to my criterion which has a clear link to justice. I have won.
The Internet does more harm than good.

First of all, I would like to convey my heartiest greetings to the instigator of today's motion. Hopefully, this debate will be a splendid one. I think, it is needless to talk about internet's history as everybody knows about that. So, I am directly going to my main speech. Today, in this debate, I would like to show 4 biggest sides where internet has benefitted us. They are as follows- Education, Health, Business, Official Activities. Then, in the last and 5th round, I will talk about the rebuttal items. The first side is Education. Now-a-days, the concept of infrastructural classes have begun to become history. Over the online classrooms, we can join in a course at any time, in any place, in any situation. Isn't it a beneficiary thing for us? Now, the concept of e-books is now well-known. In the case of real paper books, one can carry 4-5 books highest. But if he/she uses e-books, even a library can be carried. Of course, internet has to be used in downloading these books. In many developing and under-developed countries, there is not much infrastructural facility. In these cases, virtual classrooms can be built up without much expension. The activities of a virtual classroom cannot be thought of without internet connection. Moreover, if the practical and pragmatic things cannot be shown for want of adequate facility, then internet can be used. According to www.bigthink.com, 53% of the world's student are not getting all the required facilities they should get. So, in these cases, internet is a great friend. Reference informations can be collected from the internet. Internet contains all the necessary informations which is totally impossible in case of books. All kinds of necessary experiences are shared over the internet. So, one cannot deny the fact at all. According to Wikipedia, 87.39% of the US students think that internet is greatly benefitting the education. Yes, one may talk about the only harmful thing of internet in education which is facebook or other social networks ruining students' study. But the fact is, these things are not bad themselves. When they are used in a bad way, then they are called bad. If students don't use it badly, we won't have to call it bad. Yes, Newton's third law says that every action has an equal reaction. But being afraid of the reaction, will we stop the action? Not at all. Just like that, being scared of the negative sides, will we stop taking the positive sides? Also, not at all. The use of internet is up to us. So, it's our case to use it whether in a good way or in a bad way. But, internet cannot be blamed at all for that. See you in the next round.......
Children should be allowed to lie about their age in order to access certain accounts.

I understand where you think this can go wrong. Pornography. However, pornography is available anywhere on the internet or on the streets. It is unavoidable if you wish to look for it (e.g. snapchat or google images). Children die of alcohol even though it is better imposed (age wise) than pornography. Now back to the email systems that are built for children under 13: Isn't email just email? If you use gmail instead of the website you provided, aren't you doing basically the same thing? This is basically a moral question: I understand that lying is not a crime but if you wanted to use gmail as opposed to a school based, kid, email system, should you be allowed to? Or, even stretching it, should large email providers (gmail, yahoo, etc) lower their age limit? Being honest: I got my gmail at age 10, since then I have received hundreds of messages, and sent hundreds of files to my teachers and peers with ease. Gmail/Google even blocks spam and ads. And I can use my gmail to gain access to dropbox, or google drive (which are internet based storages). Does zilladog.net (example) offer that kind of service?
Children should be allowed to lie about their age in order to access certain accounts.

Your argument is valid but I do see where this can go wrong. This is short and simple, but allowing this can easily give minors access to pornography. Also, there are email systems that are specifically created for use of children such as zilladog.net Students who need emails for school are often provided so by the school system, as my school does, for example. And lying about your age, by itself, is not a crime. In order to obtain, which would be most likely in this case, is a crime.
Children should be allowed to lie about their age in order to access certain accounts.

This is an open debate. Anyone is allowed to argue their point (via contender or comment). Please be serious. Basic Pro: I believe that children should be allowed to lie about their age to access certain accounts. For example: emails are given to children 13+. But given our current society, where everything is digital, don't you think children should be allowed emails before then? Same with internet data storages. At that age, there are computer/digital projects assigned to students. Another compromise is that those certain websites and accounts could "get rid" of their age restrictions. I would like to hear your point of view if you wish to accept this debate. Cheers. :)
Flat Earth

Wrapping boundaries does not only serve those purposes. In the case of the 2-D Ising Model computer simulation the wrapping of the properties in fact reflects the real behavior of the system. A flat two dimensional lattice will behave as though the molecules on the opposite side of the lattice are directly next to them. Also, there is no reason to believe a race could not grow to be that powerful given time, and if this were to be the case the knowledge on physical limitations would have been falsified from the beginning. In the view of such a race, a reality where earth is flat may be more easily sustainable whilst our perception of reality being a globe and having the surroundings we possess may be more beneficial for their studies. In such a case they may have placed us in a reality where the laws of reality are more easily deduced to see the evolution in such a case. Plus, there is no reason to believe a being wasn't born with the ability to bend reality, whom may be willful.
Flat Earth

Wrapping boundaries in a computer simulation are only there to allow the simulation to display a physical 3d object in a 2d form, this is commonly used in topology as well to display objects such as a Mobius strip onto a 2d graph to represent point on the plane, but this is only to demonstrate higher dimensions in a lower dimension. For this to be possible in our reality to reinforce this illusion that would mean our whole existence and reality must be a simulation with a full control over our universe. Such a race that is this powerful is highly unlikely according to our current knowing of physical limitations known to us, therefore is most probably not true. Powerful people's opinions do not shape reality, and private studies that are not fixable would still be conducted, as they did, coming to a different conclusion. Maintaining this illusion would be more work than creating a reality where the Earth is truly a Globe, therefore a race of their intellect would choose to do that
Flat Earth

Personally I believe that the earth is an almost spherical object. I figured I would BS this for fun though. There is such a thing as wrapping boundaries in Computer simulations and if you made the particles on each symmetrically opposite side of the flat earth instantaneously exchange positions as you cross such a boundary you could have a flat earth while maintaining a scientific illusion that it is a globe. You could create instance illusions to falsify science seem real, or simply manipulate people in power while mixing in a bit of the true nature of the world to reinforce the illusion. Or just fix the results of experiments so they seem reasonable Whenever someone attempts them. This could be done either by a group that is significantly more advanced technologically or a naturally powerful being that can bend reality to their will and deceive us. (Basically a God)
Men are better than women.

I apologize to my opponent for appearing to directly quote his text out of context as I did; I was not intending it to be a direct representation of my opponents entire argument. I stated "..making them better suited to the survival and technological advancement..." I apologize for leaving one word out of my summary. It was intended as nothing more than an 'equivalent meaning' statement, and I apologize to my opponent for appearing to misinterpret what he was stating. As to the other issue, I also apologize for appearing to attempt to 'limit' my opponents argument to entirely biological factors. **"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."** It was clearly a misinterpretation on my part; as my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument, odd as that may sound. If my opponent is satisfied with the semantics of what we are currently debating, he may feel free to begin said debate at any time. I would like to ask my opponent to keep any further queries or objections regarding semantics or specifics of wording to the 'comments' section, rather than waste an entire round attempting to paint me as some sort of moron who cannot comprehend or put together a rational argument. I apologize for my misinterpretation, and if my opponent feels ready to utilize the remaining rounds to put forward his arguments, he may begin doing so.
Men are better than women.

"I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the physiological difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them 'better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race.'" First off you misrepresent, through modification, my quote. I said that men are better suited to ENSURING the survivability and technological advancement of the human race. Clearly men and woman are both necesary for the actual continuation (reproduction) of the human race. Though even that is not an entirely true statement. Furthermore I never stated that men being "better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race," is solely limited to the physiological difference between man and woman. I do not believe it as proper that, as a mere term of acceptance, you can negate possible arguments to my case based on unfounded assumptions you have made from misinterpretation--and clear misrepresentation--of what I said.
Men are better than women.

I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the physiological difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them "better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race". I also accept my opponent"s shouldering of the burden of proof with regards to his argument. I concur that this debate is not related to sexism or to men and women deserving different rights or not being "morally" equal. I will attempt to show in my arguments that, despite the physiological differences between men and women, neither gender is truly "better" than the other in such a sense as qualifying them as more suited to "ensuring our survival or technological advancement", and that both genders are instead merely "different" to one another to varying degrees. I will further argue that, aside from certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth, both genders are quite capable of attaining the same skills and qualities as one another to allow them to excel in whichever area they choose to apply their skills. Again, I look forward to a rational, respectful and productive debate.