BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house believes that single sex schools are good for ecucation

First off, single sex schools create a separation between two of the sexes, obviously. But schools are meant to help prepare students for the real world. In the real world males and females both co-exist with each other. If we were to segregate students of different races they wont be able to experience the real world for what it is. For example this is very similar to whites and blacks separated in schools during times of heavy racism. This doesn't help with the problem of patriarchy, what we need to do is figure out how to deal with patriarchy without just separating the races. Now on the topic of education, a specific example is that Professor Analia Schlosser, an economist researched a co-ed school and the performance of both male and female students performance was raised. It was also theorized that because of a co-ed class the students and teacher have a better relationship with each other and the level of disruption was lowered.
Gay Marriage

I shall quote my opponent and provide argumentation: "When I used my own opinion, you stated that I need FACTS and RESOURCES! " This is not true. All I stated was that my opponent needed valid argumentation and logic. I implied that my opponent should provide facts and resources to support her own arguments, but my opponent just copied exact arguments from websites. My opponent needed to back her own arguments with resources and facts, not just copy all of her arguments from websites. "I don't think retrieving facts from the internet is an issue, because everything has to come from a resource. I found the statements that I wanted and got it from the internet, you did say that I needed resources. " My opponent does not understand that it is wrong to copy all of one's arguments directly from online sources, which is considered cheating/plagiarizing. My opponent failed to quote or even provide the sources of the websites she stole her information from. The fact is, it is acceptable to support your statements with evidence found online, but it is unacceptable to take all of your arguments from online without even telling the audience what you did. My opponent needed resources to provide evidence for her side of the debate, not to copy from and ultimately tarnish a possible successful debate. "Yes! I have taken it from the internet but if that an issue? You states that I needed resources, unfortuntley I forgot to put quotes. " In my opponent's case, it is a big issue because she took all of her arguments directly from online sources. She did not even bother to source the sites where she got the information from. My opponent needed sources to provide support for her arguments, not to plagiarize whole chunks of paragraphs from sources that were not even mentioned until I found them. Clearly, my opponent has been caught stealing and plagiarizing from online sources. Providing little to none argumentation from her own self, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Gay Marriage

My opponent's opening argument is confusing and contradictory. She states that gay marriage should be allowed and does not deserve to be denied under the power of the president. She continues by supporting gay marriage with her belief that America is a "free" country and that there is nothing wrong with people of the same sex becoming married to one another. However, my opponent then states that gay marriage should have boundaries: she believes gays who are married should not show public displays of affection because it would have a negative impact on children and their future sexual orientation. My opponent supports gay marriage, which means she would consequently support gays who are married showing public displays of affection. Heterosexual married couples show public displays of affection all the time. If my opponent really supported gay marriage and feels it wrong to deny gays the right to marriage, then she would be accepting of married gays giving public displays of affection. Her argument is contradictory and goes against her side of this debate topic. Further, I would simply like to state that my opponent has yet to really support her side of the argument. She supports gay marriage, but does not want married gays to show displays of affection in public. My opponent brings little to none argumentation on why gays should be married. She just gives her beliefs without any proof or logic as to why we should support gay marriage. I would ask my opponent to clarify her side of this debate. She has created a confusing and contradictory opening argument. Once again, my opponent has not really brought up valid arguments and has yet to provide any logic or reasoning as to why gay marriage should be supported. Thank you.
Gay Marriage

I have no problem with gay marriages because I think the president has no right to tell someone who can and or whom they can't marry. It's the same as saying the opposite sex can't get married. I think it's unfair to those people because this is a "free" country and if marrying the same sex is what you want than I approve, but they need to have boundaries. I think in public they shouldn't display acts of affection to one another while kids are present because than they start thinking all kinds of things. Kids are going to be asking questions and wanting to try it and that's not how it should be, they have to choose if they want to get into those kind of relationships when their older.
Women have unrealistic expectations about marriage

I believe that today's society under values the importance of marriage and that it makes women have unrealistic views about what marriage is and what it should be such as the glorification of materialism. At this rate, there will be no more married families that stick together. Morals and values are pushed out the window. There is nothing wrong with being a single parent, but the fact remains that having two parents , 1 male and 1 female with the right state of mind and understanding what marriage really is is very important. That is how we survived for millions of years in a culture that actually goes against having only one mate, glorifying sex with multiple partners. I am a firm believer that settling down is the way to go if you intend to have a family.Being financially unstable is not reason to divorce someone, neither is falling out of love, or find attraction somewhere else. Divorce should be because of abuse or cheating or something drastic like that. I feel like today's men and women are wimps compared to our predecessors who fought for us to be here.
Women have unrealistic expectations about marriage

Thanks again for the debate. I kind of thought this would be a contentious debate but thankfully it has been cordial. I believe we agree on several significant points that indicate contend that women have unrealistic expectations about marriage. Con stated last round: “I do agree with the points that were made by the previous user. It is hard for women to be realistic as men have their fetishes and crazy weird ideas.”WE AGREE! After this and other statements made in Round 2 arguments from Con, it appears there is a lot of agreement and little disagreement. In fact, we both agree: Women have unrealistic expectations about marriage. I cannot discern where we diverge on the proposal. I actual don’t see any disagreement at all. Pro and Con agree women have unrealistic expectations about marriage. We see and identified reasons why this happens, namely societal, sexual, and social influences that both partners don’t account for or don’t consider before committing to one another. Pro and Con agree that our culture that is more permissive than in the past has created unrealistic sexual demands and sexual desires that are incompatibility with the marriage and prove detrimental to it. Also, while not explicated stated, but implicit from the debate so far, both Pro and Con perceive that modern marriages often result in unrealistic expectations that lead to emotionally incompatibility at a very basic level. Based on our agreement I will simply extend arguments made in the last round. Final comment: While we both agree on women have unrealistic expectations about marriage, I do think there may be disagreement about the ideal state of marriage, the desirability of returning to a traditional standard, and what might be the appropriate or potential remedies for unrealistic expectations in marriage. That is true, but the debate in question form: do women have unrealistic expectations about marriage? Yes, both Pro and Con agree on this, everything outside of this is not relevant to the debate itself.
Women have unrealistic expectations about marriage

I do agree with the points that were made by the previous user. It is hard for women to be realistic as men have their fetishes and crazy weird ideas. I do feel as though men have marriage twisted as well. To expect your wife/husband or to convince her to do heinous sexual acts, whether you are gay straight whatever is unacceptable. I feel as though the morals, I mean basic morality such as being honest and trying to be normal have been thrown out the window. What i mean by normal is not having all of these different partners and animals and putting these weird fetishes into play. Fetishes are fine as long as it is between you and your wife to make things exciting. Beasteality is unacceptable. Porn has a lot to do with why marriages and morality have become more or less incongruent. I feel as though in terms of love,commitment, and sex there should be equality on either side. Marriage is about building an everlasting partnership and friendship. Not just about making a woman or man have sex with you or succomb to your desires. Marriage is a hard thing to conquer, but with the right attitude and devotion, we can get things right. Nobody is perfect that is just life. However we can try to at least be civil. Our partners are not our slave. Women should be open to doing different things sexually as should men. But that doesnt include bringing in outside people. That is what makes sex so special between 2 people that love each other.
Anarchy is the true means of liberty

I believe that only through anarchy will people be free. I believe that only through the abolition of the state and the abolition of capitalism will the people have true liberty and be free from oppression.This is an experimental debate as I have just began informing myself about anarchism and I will see how it goes from there.My opponent will oppose the abolition of the state and/or the abolition of capitalism as the means of liberty to the people.Let's see how this goes http://www.google.com...
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

Since my opponent forfeited the last round I am going to debate statements that were made on the comments page. Why do we have interrogators at all if it is impossible to objectively and coherently define a situation where one is withholding vital information? If we knew that we would never have to interrogate anybody at all to find out right? Every interrogation technique in the world would be useless if it was easy to lie to interrogators. But it's not easy because when a suspect tells them something they are going to ask follow up questions and then corroborate what they are told with other evidence that they have. Even if a suspect happens to make up a lie that's convincing enough to make a move on, the interrogator is not going to let him go until it's verified, and once it's confirmed that the suspect lied the torture resumes. Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 governments practice torture. Why would interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, be willing to break the law, and risk being prosectuted to use something that doesn't work? Are all of these interrogators savages?
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

My opponent never said that the prison system shouldn't exist but stated in Round 1 "Because of all of the corruption in our legal system today, who is to say that the investigators would not change and/or manipulate the evidence in a case to where the judge would deem the torture appropriate?" and stated in Round 2 "What do you do when you've tortured a suspect and then find evidence that proves him or her innocent? Tell them you're sorry, give them a muffin basket, and send them on their way?" These statements implied that my opponent believes we should never torture because we can never be sure that the suspect is withholding life saving information. In response to this I used the prison system as an analogy and pointed out that prison wouldn't exist if we based our choices on perfect knowledge rather than the best evidence at the time which would obviously result in far more injustice and chaos. My opponent contradicted herself in Round 3 when she stated "I do agree with the fact that the rules should be changed" after stating in Round 2 "The law enforcement personnel have been using the good old fashion way for quite a while now, and going with the old say 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', why should we change it?" My opponent also claims that "there are other ways of getting information out of people." Then why are interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, so convinced that torture works that they are willing to go to the trouble of breaking the law, and risk being prosecuted?
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

I never said that the prison system shouldn't exist, I have stated that adding torture to the investigation would not work well. The definition of toture is 'the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty' I do agree with the fact that the rules should be changed, but not to include torture. There are other ways of getting information out of people. If the interrogators are trained in extracting information, then why do they need to break the law to extract the information?
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

The institutionalized system of inflicting pain on wrongdoers to protect innocent people would not result in "total chaos." Look, for example, at the institutionalized system of imprisoning criminals. It's not perfect. There has been some corruption and there have been times where investigators have made a mistake and put an innocent person in prison. But that doesn't prove that the prison system shouldn't exist because there would obviously be a lot more injustice and chaos without it. I never stated that interrogators should bypass the rules. I stated that the rules should be changed. Amnesty Internationals estimate that at least 81 governments practice torture shows that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. Why else would interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, go to the trouble of breaking the law, and risk being prosecuted to use something that is unnecessary and/or ineffective? Are all of these interrogators savages?
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

While my opponent continues to say that torture is okay and torture would only be used in necessary cases, what happens when this isn't the case anymore? Giving the interrogators the ability to toture would only result in total chaos. Letting those who are supposed to be the example for everyone else bypass the rules just to get an answer should not be allowed. My opponent also brings up the fact that 'we must base our choices on the best evidence at the time'. What do you do when you've tortured a suspect and then find evidence that proves him or her innocent? Tell them you're sorry, give them a muffin basket, and send them on their way? There is no reason that someone should have to be tortured to get an answer. The law enforcement personell have been using the good old fashion way for quite a while now, and going with the old say 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', why should we change it? If there isn't any evidence that says that the person did it, why should we torture them until they admit it? Couldn't that, potentially, allow the actual perpetrator to go free? If there were investigators that tortured someone to the brink of insanity or death, could they not just falsely admit to a crime just to end the pain? Should they be allowed? The answer is no.
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

It is illegal for a police officer to use murder when an assailant ceases to be a threat (by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing) but officers will be exonerated if they can demonstrate that they had an honest and reasonable belief that murder was necessary to protect an innocent person from another's use of unlawful force. The law should have the same sort of standard for interrogators using torture. Interrogators should be allowed to use as much torture as they have to when a judge deems that there is probable cause that a suspect is withholding life saving information and issues a warrant. The question of whether or not murder would be the result of torture doesn't make sense due to the fact that suspects are no good to interrogators dead. The idea that we should never torture because we can never be sure that investigators aren't corrupt is wrong. Investigators could, for example, manipulate evidence to frame someone for sexual assault. Does that prove that prison shouldn't exist? Like all decisions, we must base our choices on the best evidence at the time.
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

Interrogators should not be allowed to use torture in any case. Because of all of the corruption in our legal system today, who is to say that the investigators would not change and/or manipulate the evidence in a case to where the judge would deem the torture appropriate? Murder in the case of self defense is not always considered 'okay'. There have been cases where an officer has been tried for shooting a person while in the line of duty. Not only that but how far would the torture go? Would the result of the torture be murder itself? Those that you are torturing because of their POSSIBLE knowledge are those innocent people.
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

Interrogators should be allowed to use torture when a judge deems that there is probable cause that a suspect is withholding life saving information and issues a warrant. Actions that are normally immoral are justified in self defense. Murder, for example, is normally immoral. But if a police officer gets a clear shot and kills a wrongdoer to save a hostage we would not only justify it but thank god it was done. That is because it's morally correct to favor the rights of innocent people when they conflict with the rights of wrongdoers.
interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information

I do apologize for not posting my argument, technical difficulties arose. But, moving on from that. I think that you saying that it is not easy to lie to interrogators is correct in most circumstances, but there are excellent liars out there. But if, as you say, suspects in question cannot lie to interrogators is there any need for torture? Because interrogators are trained and certified, again as you said, in extracting information so why would they need to torture people just to get an answer? Are they not qualified and therefore need to turn to torture? I do not agree with torture because of moral standards, I think that there are other ways to extract information from people in question. To answer your question about whether or not all interrogators are savages, no. But that doesn't justify the way that they are recieving information. If you have a good interrogator, then there would be no reason for torture. So maybe instead of allowing people who are authority figures go above the law and torture someone, there should be better training in the interrogation department.
Shaq was Batman, Kobe was Robin, if the Kobe now replaced the Kobe then this would still be the case

Shaquille O'Neal 96-97 LAL 51 51 38.1 0.557 0.000 0.484 3.8 8.7 12.5 3.1 0.9 2.9 2.86 3.53 26.2 97-98 LAL 60 57 36.3 0.584 0.000 0.527 3.5 7.9 11.4 2.4 0.6 2.4 2.92 3.22 28.3 98-99 LAL 49 49 34.8 0.576 0.000 0.540 3.8 6.9 10.7 2.3 0.7 1.7 2.49 3.16 26.3 99-00 LAL 79 79 40.0 0.574 0.000 0.524 4.3 9.4 13.6 3.8 0.5 3.0 2.82 3.23 29.7 00-01 LAL 74 74 39.5 0.572 0.000 0.513 3.9 8.8 12.7 3.7 0.6 2.8 2.95 3.46 28.7 01-02 LAL 67 66 36.1 0.579 0.000 0.555 3.5 7.2 10.7 3.0 0.6 2.0 2.55 2.97 27.2 02-03 LAL 67 66 37.8 0.574 0.000 0.622 3.9 7.2 11.1 3.1 0.6 2.4 2.93 3.42 27.5 03-04 LAL 67 67 36.7 0.584 0.000 0.490 3.7 7.8 11.5 2.9 0.5 2.5 2.91 3.36 21.5 Kobe Bryant 96-97 LAL 71 6 15.5 0.417 0.375 0.819 0.7 1.2 1.9 1.3 0.7 0.3 1.58 1.44 7.6 97-98 LAL 79 1 26.0 0.428 0.341 0.794 1.0 2.1 3.1 2.5 0.9 0.5 1.99 2.28 15.4 98-99 LAL 50 50 37.9 0.465 0.267 0.839 1.1 4.2 5.3 3.8 1.4 1.0 3.14 3.06 19.9 99-00 LAL 66 62 38.2 0.468 0.319 0.821 1.6 4.7 6.3 4.9 1.6 0.9 2.76 3.33 22.5 00-01 LAL 68 68 41.0 0.464 0.305 0.853 1.5 4.3 5.9 5.0 1.7 0.6 3.24 3.26 28.5 01-02 LAL 80 80 38.3 0.469 0.250 0.829 1.4 4.1 5.5 5.5 1.5 0.4 2.79 2.85 25.2 02-03 LAL 82 82 41.5 0.451 0.383 0.843 1.3 5.6 6.9 5.9 2.2 0.8 3.51 2.66 30.0 03-04 LAL 65 64 37.7 0.438 0.327 0.852 1.6 3.9 5.5 5.1 1.7 0.4 2.63 2.71 24.0 http://www.nba.com...