BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mixed-sex dormitories should be the only dormitory type permitted at higher education institutes

I will be defending the resolution that mixed-sex dormitories should be the only dormitory type permitted at higher education institutes.Higher Education: education or learning at a college or university.(1) If I may also add that this means above the age of 18, as I don't want to debate silly semantics about age.First round is for acceptance only.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...Important: BOP is shared. This is something I say for all debates I instigate (as of 6/27/2014). It makes voters vote on what is presented and not look for a semantic reason to vote against or for someone. Ideally, the BOP is on Pro, but its not possible to prove anything beyond doubt. So in effect if we are to apply BOP to any debate then Pro automatically wins. By sharing BOP, I make the debate arguments open to a more rational non semantic vote. And I avoid the terrible "Lest I remind you BOP lies on Pro in this debate, and they have not met their BOP".
Death penalty

Majority of the people only look at the murderer's condition. The person murdered another human being. Why should he be allowed to live when the victim's family is suffering from the loss? Also, if the murderer is killed, it gives closure to the family and also other people in the society. Killing a murderer is not stooping down to the murderer's level, it is only for the safety of other people and to prevent other murders. 60% of the Japan population agree with the death penalty when a survey was conducted.
Death penalty

If the rich are able to escape from the death penalty then sure can escape from other punishments through. But with death penalty, there is a lower chance of the person escaping prison and committing other crimes. There a lot of cases where people who are in prisons either go crazy from loneliness or from staying in prison from too long and kill or harm people within the prison. They are a threat not only to the public, but also to prison guards and mates.
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

Concluding StatementMy argument has consisted of two focal points that I feel that my opponent has not sufficiently rebutted. These are:a) Not only does Argentina have a claim on the Falklands, but it is stronger than the UK's. b) The returning of the Falklands to Argentina would prove to be beneficiary to multiple countries. Point a has been evidenced by multiple historical examples. Argentina's claim on the islands originates from the fact that they were owned by Argentina following the civil war against Spain, and therefore the Falklands belonged and still should belong to Argentina. The only reason why the islands are not controlled by Argentina today is because the UK invaded the Falklands in 1832 due to the fact that the new Argentine government was too weak to defend its country. This also villainizes the UK because it shows that the claim that they have on the islands was fabricated out of violence. Point b can also be evidenced given the fact that Argentina has a vast supply of oil, and the addition of the Falklands would certainly lead to the distribution of the oil throughout the world. This will not happen if the islands remain in control of the UK because the UK has a massive deficit between oil produced and consumed, therefore most of this oil will remain in British control. My opponent fails to show how this is not the case and his only defense is that the UK needs the oil so therefore they deserve to have the oil. Given these two points, it is clear that the returning of the Falkland islands is both the morally correct thing to do and also would be more beneficiary to other countries.
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

Last round now. This is my closing statement.It seems that Argentina's claim (and my opponents counter argument) is a bit hypocritical. The UK would want the Falkland Islands just for their natural resources, so does Argentina. The UK wants to keep the Islands so the people can remain happy in a stable government, rather than join the 24% poverty[1] of Argentina.I maintain my claim that Argentina has no right to claim the islands. The United Kingdom took the islands, and then invaded the Islands back after the month-long Argentinian reign. There was no international law in place, and the Empire was doing what it thought was right at the time. Now, Argentina want to take the islands against the will of their people, which is against international law. (Security Council Resolution 502).Colonialism is dead, but Argentina is trying to bring it back to life by taking the Islands against everybody's will. Nearly all the arguments that Argentina, and my opponent, can give are hypocritical.I'll just leave you with some news articles about why the Falkland Islands do not want to join the mess in Argentina at the moment. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is just a simple way of stirring up patriotism in a country that is an LEDC, compared to the more advanced United Kingdom.[2][3]Sources:1. http://www.economist.com...2. http://www.bbc.co.uk...3. http://www.theguardian.com...
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

Second RebuttalArgument #1: Geographical ReasonsMy first argument about geographical proximity is less of an argument than it is just stating facts. I don't believe that Argentina gets a greater claim on the islands due to the fact that they are closer to them then the UK is. I believe, as I have stated in my previous arguments, that Argentina deserves to regain the islands due to the fact that no country should be allowed to own colonies/territories anymore. Following this argument, I think that the territories that you mentioned do not deserve to be owned by a foreign nation. Argument #2: Oil/Natural Gas My argument about the oil surrounding the Falklands is that the islands should be returned to Argentina due to the fact that it would prove to be more beneficiary to more people/countries than if they remained with the UK. My opponent seems to agree with me on this point, as he does not give a counter argument to this claim. The rebuttal that the UK needs the oil on the islands is valid, but this does not give any reason for why the UK has a greater claim on the Falklands. If anything, it shows that the UK wants the islands solely for the natural resources. Argument #3: ColonialismTroutbeck's quote about the seizure of the Falklands may be his opinion, but that does not mean that his opinion is false. Colonialism, by nature, is arbitrary. The fact that the UK took the islands by force only worsens the situation.Also, the Arana-Southern Treaty that my opponent mentioned is not so much a advantage to the UK as it is a stain on their reputation. The treaty was signed by Argentina because they had been blockaded by both the UK and France for over five years simply because the UK wanted to keep control over a pivotal island that, at the time, had no claim to [1]. This, along with the invasion of the islands in 1832, clearly shows how the current claim that the UK has over the islands was fabricated out of violence and blatant violations of human rights. ConclusionBoth the violent history of the UK's presence in the Falklands and the obvious fact that the UK wants the islands solely for the natural resources leads to the conclusion that the UK does not have a legitimate claim over the islands and should therefore be returned to Argentina. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

The online poll from the Telegraph was a majority vote for Argentina, I know. I have the vote poll in my sources.That is because, as the poll acknowledges, there was an Argentine social media campaign about the poll, meaning that the vast majority of the votes came from inside Argentina or Spain (who we have the Gibraltar issue with). Inside the UK, voting looks like this: In the Falklands, it looked like this: I understand that shared soverignity would be useful, but out of the 20,000 people that voted in the Telegraph poll, 567 people wanted to be British. It may be useful, but nobody wants it. [1]Also, I am supposed to be aguing that the Argentine viewpoint on the issue is wrong, ans why the British viewpoint is right. I used the British opinion as an argument because the United Kingdom own the Falkland Islands at the moment, and they clearly don't want to give it up.Also, on your source 3, it never says anything about the Falkland Islands. And on the Wikipedia page that says anything about the Fuegians and the Falklands, it says that they MAY have visited the Islands[2]. And also, if they did actually inhabit the Islands, then why aren't there any structures there? [3]Britain took the Islands in 1833, the year after a mutiny of Argentine forces on the Islands[2]. Also, the Falklands weren't originally Argentine. In 1764, they were French, then British in 1765, then Spainish in 1771, then British again in 1774. They were inhabited for 18 years before the United Provinces (southern Brazil) took them in 1829, then the United States took them in 1831, and then they were uninhabited for a year until the Argentine forces took them in December 1832, and had control of them for a period of about a month. The recent World Cup lasted longer than the Argentine control over the islands from December 1832 to January 1833. [4]You can't use that conclusion either, then you are saying that the United States or France have an equal right to own the Islands.The main point of my argument is that Argentina may have a strong claim, but the citizens of the Falklands want to be British, and Argentina would be breaking international law if they took the islands against the will of the Falkland Islanders.Sources:1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

RebuttalDue to the fact that my opponent has not provided any sources to back up his arguments, I will just assume that his statistics are valid. The majority of my opponents argument is that the people of the Falklands are British and therefore should not join Argentina. I acknowledge this, however this raises the question of whether or not the islands deserve to be British in the first place. The argument that the vast majority of British people want the UK to keep the Falklands is partially true, as one poll showed that half wanted to keep the islands while the other half preferred to have a shared unity with Argentina [1]. This option could prove to be very successful, as the UK could partially solve their oil problems, while Argentina could satisfy their people and also relieve some of their own oil concerns. Also, it means that the British people of the Falklands could remain British citizens if that is what they wished. However, to be fair, it is important to analyze the Argentine point of view on the matter as well, as my opponent neglected to mention this in his argument. It is very clear that nearly all Argentineans believe that the Falklands are Argentine (view source) [2]. As for the next point, this is technically not true as Fuegians (natives of Tierra del Fuego/Patagonia) had inhabited the island, however this was in prehistoric times and they were gone before the Europeans ever arrived [3]. This however raises the point that Argentineans were the first on the islands, and therefore their claim is more legitimate. Also, I would like to clarify how the British came to take control over the islands. After Argentina's civil war against Spain, the islands, while technically under Spanish rule, became mostly uninhabited. However, Spain left in 1811 and therefore the new nation of Argentina assumed that the islands were theirs. In 1832 British forces arrived and forcefully took the islands from the Argentine Confederation [4]. This background gives Argentina a legitimate argument for the islands due to the fact that they were essentially annexed from Argentina by the UK. Conclusion: Argentina's claim on the Falkland islands are not only legitimate, but are stronger than the UK's claim on the islands due to both the citizens greater desire to control the islands and the history of the islands themselves. Sources: [1] http://en.mercopress.com...[2] http://www.bbc.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

I can see your first point about geographical proximity, but the United Kingdom has many Overseas Terrories. For example, nobody claims to Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands or the British Virgin Islands, just to name a few. Nobody claims to own Saint Martin, Clipperton Island, Saint Pierre and Miquelon or Guadeloupe (all territories of France). Nobody claims to own the Canary Islands (Spain), the Azores (Portugal), Greenland (Denmark) or Guam (United States).[1]Your point about the oil I can also see, but it contradicts your point about colonialism. Taking away land from aother country, without the locals' consent, for your own gain is colonialism. I understand the moral argument, but if Argentina decided to take Argentina in this current situation, they wouldn't be any better than the British invading an uninhabited island.Also, Britain uses all of the oil because, as your graph shows, Britain needs oil. If the Falkland Islands were handed to Argentina, the United Kingdom would get no Falkland oil, and they would have to buy it from elsewhere. With the current financial state of the UK[2], this is not something that they would want to do.John Troutbeck apparently went to my school when he was a child, so I'm glad you brought him up. He is one person, out of 24 million British people. He didn't state any facts either, he just said his opinion.Don't forget that many members of the United Nations[3] and all of the European Union[4] recognise the Falkland Islands to be British.I also found a nice thing called the Arana-Southern treaty, signed in 1850. The agreement was that the government in Argentina wouldn't ever make a claim for the Falkland Islands, and in return, the United Kingdom and France would stop the blockade of the Rio de la Plata (which was started by an attack by Argentina). This means that Argentina are breaking international law by repeatedly claiming that the Falklands belong to them.[5]Sources:1: https://en.wikipedia.org...2: https://www.google.co.uk...3: http://web.archive.org...;4: http://en.mercopress.com...5: https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

I think that most of the English speakers on this website probably wouldn't know much about this subject. Good luck! I, along with the vast majority of the British population, believe that the Falkland Islands are British. I probably wouldn't have an opinion on this subject if it wasn't for the continuous propaganda from the Argentine government, and also the referendum in 2013 where 3 people voted for the islands to become Argentinean out of 1650 citizens. That is the main point in a British viewpoint on this issue. Almost everybody from the Falklands wants to be British, and the people who want to be Argentine will probably move to Argentina. Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if it wasn't for the Argentine government letting the situation lay dormant since 1982, and then suddenly bringing it up around the same time that 30% of their population was under the poverty line, and their government was in massive debt. I'm sure that it is just a cheap way of stirring up patriotism. Their claim is that "Of course the population of the Malvinas would say that they are British, colonials massacred the native population." When the British arrived on the islands, they were the only breathing organism on the islands. The Dutch previously came to the islands, as did the French and Portuguese. They all left. English is the only language on the island. Nobody speaks the Spanish that they speak in Argentina. My final point is that the British had civilisation on the island, and had formally made it part of the empire 50 years before Argentina existed. Forgive me for any typos, I am making this argument on my new tablet.
Proof of any God

Thanks for initiating the debate. You ask if anyone can prove God's existence using science. The Christian God is a person and my answer to your question is that science cannot prove or disprove a person's existence. Can you falsify your own own existence? That would be the scientific way right? Provide scientific evidence that Plato existed or that Ceasar existed. The evidence to do this is of a historical nature relying on the testimony of others etc. and is therefore not of the scientific kind. Can science resurrect Plate to subject him to the scientific method? Asking scientific proof in this case is like asking what the color blue smells like. Science have limitations and can therefore only be applied to that which it is limited too. Should you still require scientific evidence then you must specify exactly what the REASONABLE scientific method will be to accomplish this. Science is not a agent to determine religious truths, although it can support it. Muslims, Christians and atheist alike are able to do science. One of the biggest jokes i hear is when a Scientist claim something like: we now know better therefore we do not need God to explain it. When you start to ask specific questions about dark matter, dark energy, black holes and how the big bang occured then it quickly becomes evident that they do not know better but infact know nothing. At best they can provide a hypothesis to try and replace God. If you like i can post citations for this in the next round. The experiments work regardless of your religious orientation. To say people should leave religion behind and rather follow a scientific path into the future is therefore not a very logical deduction because individual belief do not change the scientific methods used. People using science gave use cures for deceases but is also responsible for a lot of diseases plaguing humanity today. People using science gave us the means to perhaps life longer but also the means to destroy the whole world. Why not rather just get rid of all the scientists, that would be more consistent with your argument. If you don't mind, I will deal with the historicity of Christ in the next round.
Proof of any God

Can any religious person scientifically prove the existence of their god? Please provide sources. Through research I believe mostly all religions were developed as a measure of control on a population. I also believe that as a species we would be better off without religion. We have learnt valuable lessons through religion, but I think the best way forward for the human race is to now have a more scientific viewpoint on all aspects of life. As a side note - Can any Christian provide definitive proof of the existence of Jesus Christ?
Today's types of Feminism isn't needed

You said and I quote in full context "Todays feminism isn't needed, They have no rights that they need to fight for, And are establishing a bad name for feminism, As if when some of them think that all men should die and that sort. Women have the same rights as men do, So change my mind. " Your title says and I quote "Today's types of Feminism isn't needed" As for your title you did in fact say "types", Plural, But then you said "isn't needed" which would be grammatically correct if referring to one type of feminism, But instead you were referencing multiple? Then in your argument as quoted above you went on to refer to feminism in general as one ideology. So perhaps I was just confused what your argument was given the grammatical inconsistencies. In any case I conceded that the more broadly defined gender pay gap study showing women earning at approximately 79 cents on the dollar to Men wasn't an ideal to study when compared to the controlled pay gap study. The example I looked at in particular highlighted men and women working in the same Executive positions which are salary positions, Or in other words they receive a flat rate, Not an hourly wage and therefore eliminating the question of overtime being involved. I would say that the pay gap does in fact exist but is somewhat justified on the broader scale given the fact that more men work in high demanding labor intensive jobs than women (like construction, Carpentry, Etc. ) which typically command higher hourly wages and more Overtime pay than an entry level office job or non-labor intensive position. This at least can explain why such a large gap exists in a reasonable manner. As for the controlled wage gap study though the same cannot be said. So again looking at a snippet of your argument "They have no rights that they need to fight for" would be an incorrect statement given the nature of what the studies I cited show.
Today's types of Feminism isn't needed

Now, With "types" of Feminism which was my argument title, I meant the difference from fighting inequality, To woman dominance. Presiding you brought up wage gap, Simply the statistics aren't as accurate as you think. With a man and women, You have to count overtime and undertime, Statistically women work more then men, But men work more overtime them women, Overtime presides more money then just regularly working, This would provide more waging for the person which is not statistically a male, To have a bigger salary, And when that isn't taken into account, "wage gap" becomes and explained problem which is a different standard.
School Uniforms

" freedom of expression is important" Yes it is important, however there are plenty of ways this can be achieved while still wearing a uniform. It also prevents bullying or getting distracted by what everyone is wearing. What if someone causes offense to another person through the way they dress? "A mandatory dress code encourages conformity. Is that the message we want to send our children? That individuality is dangerous?" Its not conformity that is being encouraged it is that in school it doesn't matter if you cant afford top shop or shop at Asda or even get clothes in car boot sales its about learning and being part of a community not just social classes. "But think of the major implications behind a uniform. Children are already made to think alike. Now we're making them dress alike?"- Children are not made to think alike they are encouraged to be imaginative. "Students must NOT follow the crowd. They MUST think, act, and dress for themselves."- Students are not following the crowd if they are being made to wear the same if anything it stops them people would see a t-shirt a girl is wearing and want to have it so everyone copies each other. My school also required a uniform.
School Uniforms

I believe freedom of expression is important. A mandatory dress code encourages conformity. Is that the message we want to send our children? That individuality is dangerous? Yes, it saves time. But think of the major implications behind a uniform. Children are already made to think alike. Now we're making them dress alike? In this mass-culture we live in, an independent spirit is crucial. Students must NOT follow the crowd. They MUST think, act, and dress for themselves. Take it from me. My school requires a uniform.
School Uniforms

we should keep because people can tell what school we are from by the logo and we look neat,tidy and smart. http://www.birchfld.bham.sch.uk... Everyone looks the same and there is no pressure to dress a certain way, parents are under less financial pressure to keep buying the latest fashion for their kids, it saves time in the morning as you don't have to think on what you have to wear. It also sends out a signal on the standards of the school when pupils are seen in their uniform in public.