BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism Is bad

BIRT: communism is not bad. Two points: 1. I not quite sure what you were going for with the world government point. A world government is what Marxism strives for. I would like it if you clarify. 2. Concerning the nature of man. Yes, People are corrupt. Still, That cannot be used as a point against the system as the system should work perfect in theory. Regardless, I believe that if theoretical communism could work, We would have seen it by now. I thank you for your time.
Communism Is bad

The flaw in my opinion is this: people cannot be successful. In capitalism people can pursue there dreams, Strive to improve, And work with more opportunities in life. While in communism, You are limited to the government, And to the country. Because of this, There is normally a lack of freedom for the individual. But the biggest problem is actually not that, Its the system and point behind it. There is a goal in major countries to take over the world, LITERALLY. (I am going to sound insane) The countries that take away the rights of individuals normally have this mindset to take over the planet. China has planted hundreds of military outpost throughout Africa. The U. N. Admitially wants a one world government, That why many of the countries in europe are opening their borders. Than might seem irrelevant, But it is actually to my point. The communist countries are tiny example of a world wide government, Where the people freedom are fairly limited, And people don't have opportunity to strive for economic success. Look, Inherently there is nothing wrong with communism, But what is wrong is the minds of the people behind them. I believe what the bible says 100 percent. And is says this"none is righteous, No not one". Because of this, If there is no such thing a Godly government, A the heart of man is wicked, Than there is no reason why people should sell themselves to a corrupt government. What makes a government bad is not the system as much as it is the people, With this I leave your nest round. Thankyou!
Communism Is bad

BIRT: communism is not bad. For the sake of this debate I will call true communism Marxism, As its easier to say. Here are my two points. 1. Marxism is perfect in theory. Everyone knows this. There is no flaw in Karl Marx's original theory except the theory will only work if its accepted worldwide. 2. Communsim in practice is NOT communism. What does all communist countries have in common? They have money. But in true communism, Everyone shares equally without the need to exchange pieces of paper. I look forward to you response
Black people and Indian people are not the same

I shall break down another of Bear's arguments:A) Group A smells like a particular odor, to this observerB) Group B smells like another particular odor, to this observerC) A member of group B has the same last name as the odor that Group B allegedly smells like, to the observerD) Group C, referring to American Indians, is not at all the same as Group B, Eastern Indians. Group C.1 is a particular subset of Group CE) Part of the name of Group C.1 resembles the name of Group A.Therefore, Group A and B are the same.QED
Black people and Indian people are not the same

Let's put aside this mockery of a trolling being put forth by Con and indulge his whims.1) Black is a skin color. Indian is an ethnicity. They are not even in the same sociological grouping.2) Whether they "stink" is a matter of opinion. Aside from being blatantly racist and prejudiced, there are many groups of people who would consider your odor foreign and say that you "stink"3) Almost your entire argument is based on smell. Even if "blacks smell like poop" and "Indians smell like curry", wouldn't that make them different people?4) The logic simply does not make sense:A) Two unrelated groupings of homosapiens do not smell in a way that Con likesB) Group A smells like a particular odorC) Group B smells like a different particular odorD) Person X has the same last name as the odor which Con feels Group B smells likeE) Group A and Group B are the sameEven in all the infinite multiverses that may exist in the vast cosmos, I can't imagine one in which this is a valid argument that doesn't constitute egregious racism.
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

Refutations1. Teachers get along better with similar sex studentsFirst of all, there is no evidence or source for this. Even if I were to entertain it as a valid point here is my refutation: Valerie Lee, a professor at the University of Michigan says that this claim is false. She did a study which found that incidents occuring where teachers favored students of their own sex or disfavoring students of the opposite sex were equally prevalent in all boys schools, all girls schools, and co-ed schools.2. Different genders respond to differnt analogiesI understand that my opponent is not trying to be sexist, but the fact remains that if a teacher wants to get to students of both genders, they can just cite both analogies. Besides, teaching isn't always reliant on analogies, and my opponent has poitned out no obvious harm in not understanding one analogy. Tons of analogies go over my head in school regardless of my gender.3. The opposite sex poses a distractionMy opponent asks you to "imagine" these situations. That's all he is citing here. Imagination. There is no source for this, and leading evidence shows that boys and girls work better with the opposite gender in the room because it gives them motivation to do better. See my fourth point for more expansion.4. Boys and girls are better at different things. There is no way to refute this because my opponent has provided no sources, no evidence, and no examples of this happening. If you tell me why this happens, then I can refute it. As it is, we have no way of knowing if this is valid.
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

I wold like to continue to point out that I am not necessarily for single sex education, I will defend it. It may be helpful to know that I am male. You said no clashing this round so I will not. I feel that many arguments against single sex is short sighted and people do not see the long term. Male teachers generally get along better with male students. Female teachers generally get along better with female students. Different genders respond to different analogies. While a girl may respond better to a shopping analogy, boys may respond better to a hunting analogy. However, a shopping analogy would be lost on a boy and hunting would be lost on girls. (Not trying to be sexist and I understand that this may not be true for all). The opposite sex poses a distraction. Imagine a case in which a girl does not want to look like a nerd so she does not answer questions. Imagine a case where a boy does not want to look stupid so he doesn't ask questions. This happens often in school. This is primarily to impress or avoid unimpression. The last point I will address this round is subject matters. Boys are better at some things than girls. Girls are better at others. By seperating them, teachers can further develop skills without confusing the other sex, and they can help the sex that needs more help without holding the other sex back.
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

Great! Let us begin.Arguments 1. Gender differences in learning styles are not universal. This means that some students that don’t respond to quote unquote boyish learning style will have to be subject to it. greatschools.org gives an example of a sensitive boy that is intimidated by a teacher who “gets in his face” and speaks loudly believing that’s what boys want and need to learn. 2. Very few teachers are trained to use gender-specific learning techniques. The National Association for Single-Sex Public Education states itself on it’s website (singlesexschools.org) that some schools that have “plunged into experimentation with this format without a thorough grounding in the complexities of the single-gender format.” They say that this format doesn’t improve grades magically, and that the teachers must be properly trained. This means that in order for single-sex schooling to improve performance, teachers must be educated on teaching kids of only one gender. The fact is, there aren’t many well trained single-sex educators out there. It takes work to train teachers to identify gender differences and teach accordingly. Without proper training, single sex education doesn’t work well. 3. Students need to be prepared for the real world where they will interact with the other gender. Students will need to interact with people of the opposite gender when they join the workforce. The point of education is to prepare students for working. When students don’t have proper access to interactions with other genders, they can become awkward with others and not know how to be polite and proper around the other gender. 4. Studies have shown that students perform better in co-ed schools. Studies show that the higher the percentage of girls in a co-ed classroom, the better the academic performance for all students (both male and female). Professor Analia Schlosser, an economist from the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv, found that elementary school, co-ed classrooms with a majority of female students showed increased academic performance for both boys and girls. In high school, the classrooms with the best academic achievement were consistently those that had a higher percentage of girls. A higher percentage of girls lowers classroom disruption and creates better relationships with the teacher.
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

Resolution & Burden of the Proof & DefinitionsSingle-sex education is better than co-education.I will be taking the "con" side, so you will be arguing that single-sex is better than co-ed.Burden of the proof is equal. Both sides will have to prove their own argument and disprove their opponent's.Single-sex-All boys or all girls schoolsCo-education-Mixed gender schools.FormalitiesRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments (no clash)Round 3: ClashRound 4: Clash and Conclusion
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

My opponent has complained about me not citing sources. However, I am quite credible because I am a student who sees things with gender relations every single day. How is this not credible. My opponent is relying on the opinions of people who think that they may know what is best for students but is never actually bringing in the opinion of a student. I am that student. Personally, I do not want single sex education, however, I believe that it provides a better learning environment, and from what I see, many students need this. At one point, my opponent has stated that teachers could use both analogies or learning styles. However, why would a teacher waste his or her time teaching using both. Furthermore, given what my opponent is saying about girls and boys in the classroom, single sex is needed. Clearly, boys need a more disciplined education system and girls do not. Why waste resources increasing discipline on girls when boys are the problem. My opponent is using the reasoning that classrooms with a higher percentage of girls in the classroom are more productive, so how about 100% girls and no boys. The girl classroom would be more productive and the boy classroom can be more disciplined and strict to help them learn. Furthermore, my opponent has stated that teachers are not trained for single sex. I responded by saying that teachers will learn from experience. Also, teachers can basically go to google and look up learning styles differences between boys and girls and teach accordingly. Basically, I do not see why problems are found for either single sex or coed. Both have benefits. Both have faults. For both, the problems can be resolved easily in my opinion. Yes my opinion is a student's opinion. In response to his refusal of my credibility I will say, would you want someone from another country telling you what to do or someone from your country telling you what to do.
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

My opponent, who has cited no sources and no evidence, now defends his points by saying "he is a student". Obviously, we cannot trust a source such as this. Counter Refutations1. Gender differences in learning style are not universalMy opponent says this is about the majority, and I agree. I was merely pointing out that single sex education is harmful in this way. This is one example of harm it can do.2. Very few teachers are trained to use gender specific learning techniques. My opponent says that with experience teachers can pick up on learning techniques, however3. Students need to be prepared for the real world where they will interact with other people. My oppponent says that co-ed is better for social development, so he has given this point to me. As to mental development, he says that single-sex is better, however he has cited no reasoning for this. I am confused.4. Students perform better in co-ed schools. My opponent concedes on this point. He says that I am saying that "boys are basically bad for schools and that all girls classes perform better. ". The studies that I cited showed that in co-ed schools a higher percentage of girls is better. It doesn't have anything to do with single-sex education.
Single-sex Education is better than co-education

Now I will refute your claims. 1 Gender differences in learning styles are not universal. True, but it is about the majority. There is no way to make every student happy unless you put students together after multiple psyche evaluations and iq tests. As far as gender goes, not everyone will be happy. But the majority of both boys and girls would be able to learn better. 2. Very few teachers are trained to use gender-specific learning techniques. You are right. However, with experience teachers can pick up on learning techniques. 3. Student need to be prepared for the real world where they will interact with other people. School has two major aspects, social development and mental development. I agree that coed learning is better for the social but mental development is better with single education for reasons I have and will state. 4. I have nothing to say about but the fact that you are saying that boys are basically bad for schools and that all girl classrooms would actually perform better than coed though all boy classes may not. You asked for sources. I am a student. I see these things every day. This is my credibility. This is why I understand this. I still do not support converting to single sex, but I have done what I could to defend the positives of this. Thank you, I had fun with this, which was my purpose.
Raising Minimum Wage

My opponent challenged me to this debate based off another debate regarding this topic. I will be using the same arguments from that debate and expanding on those points. There is historical evidence that raising minimum wage is detrimental to companies. I will start off this debate by pointing out three facts: 1. Raising minimum wage causes companies to to either cut employees or cut hours. Most companies either do not have it in their budget to pay the difference when minimum wage is increased, or they refuse to increase their budgets. Therefore, many companies will hire fewer people to compensate for the higher wages. Other companies have a tendency to cut hours. Just because someone is making $10/hour instead of $7, it doesn't mean that they will be offered the hours desired to see a difference. 2. Raising minimum wage increases costs. For companies that do not cut employees or hours, they are forced to raise prices to compensate for the extra money being spent on payroll. There is a reason that prices have soared for many consumer products in recent years...it is because minimum wage keeps increasing. In order to balance their budget, most companies have to charge higher prices to compensate. 3. Raising minimum wage kills competition for jobs. There are two possible consequences if minimum wage reaches the desired $15/hour that many cities and states are fighting for. Most of these jobs require very little skill and/or little to no education. Therefore, this is either going to cause other careers to raise their wages or many will pass by college to get a job that will pay close to the same without the student loan debt. Why would someone go to college for 4 or 5 years and be put $100,000 in debt to work a job that pays just a little more than a career with no education experience required. Either way, it will start a ripple effect across the entire economy. I will provide more resources to prove my position as the debate progresses into the next rounds.
If A Tree Fell In A Forrest With No One Around To Hear It, It Would Still Make A Sound

Here is a quote from Andei Linde, a physicist at Stanford university "You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it, That's the same Schrodinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago. The universe and the observer exist as a pair, You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words " it looks like it was here" for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead." The physical universe does not physically exist with out the observer. Look up the double slit experiment. The vibrations a tree may or may not make when falling with nothing aground is not sound. The ear of a sentient being is what associates those vibrations with sound, there for creating the sound.
If A Tree Fell In A Forrest With No One Around To Hear It, It Would Still Make A Sound

The key part of that definition (that con seems to have missed) is that it CAN be heard when it reaches a person's ear, not that it has to be in order to be sound. Con argues that these vibrations would not exist if no one was around to perceive them. But this is absurd. If this is the case, con must agree that the vibrations a tree makes do not exist before/until they reach a person's ear if a tree falls a hundred yards away from a person and there's a slight time delay in the vibrations making it into the person's ear. Con must also agree that the light from stars that began traveling before human beings existed did not exist until there was someone to perceive them. But this is to assert something that is totally unsupported and, indeed, contradicted by science. We know the distance of e.g. the Andromeda Galaxy from our own - it's a little over 2 million light years. If the light it emitted did not exist before we perceived it, it would literally have had to spring into being at the exact moment that someone first observed it. But this is manifestly absurd. The same would hold true for the sound a tree makes. Unless con wants to agree that the vibrations a tree makes when it falls and the sound we hear and numerically non-identical and literally spring into existence when someone is around to perceive them, he must concede my position. But since that view denies what we currently understand about the fundamental properties of light and sound as given to us by science, con will have quite a case to make. I'll use another analogy to help make this clear. Some people who are colorblind cannot see the color red. By con's logic, the color red literally does not exist for these people, but it exists for me. But surely the color red (that is, the wavelengths of light that we perceive as red) either exist or they do not. Con has no grounds to tell me that red does not exist to me, because I perceive it and I know it does. And just because a colorblind person does not perceive it, that does not entail that it therefore does not exist. I'll reiterate my argument. The vibrations a tree makes when it falls are logically identical to the sounds we hear when we perceive those vibrations. Thus, when a tree falls in a forrest, it makes a sound, whether anyone is around to see it or not. Con has done nothing to refute this point except to take an extraordinarily controversial metaphysical stance, namely things do not exist outside of perception, but he has provided no evidence for this. Therefore my argument still stands.
If A Tree Fell In A Forrest With No One Around To Hear It, It Would Still Make A Sound

you can say "what if the sound is trapped in side the trunk of a tree." if you'd like. but that's not the case. it just does not happen. because as you stated previously "The definition of sound is, "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person or animal's ear.". so if the tree falls and makes sound waves or vibrations and there is NO conscious being in the surrounding areas to perceive these vibrations then they simply would not exist as there was no perception. now lets just ignore that in order for something to exist it needs to be perceived. if the tree fell and no one was around, it would create vibrations that eventually disappear, they would be absorbed by the surrounding objects, like trees, grass, etc.. so there was no organ or anything to perceive the vibrations as sounds. which means no sound was made
If A Tree Fell In A Forrest With No One Around To Hear It, It Would Still Make A Sound

Definition of sound: vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear. No need to define anything else. I'm opening this back up since there was some confusion in my last attempt. This is meant to be short and fun, but I also want it to be a real debate because it is an interesting metaphysical question. You can accept and then I'll get right into it.