BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LGBT Should Be Illegal

1.I know that straight people can get the HIV/AIDS but what I am saying is that Lesbian and Gay people are the most who have the disease. The problem with this is that it is an extra cause of the HIV/AIDS and increasing numbers of it. In some countries health care is free which means you are paying taxes to treat something caused by pleasure (HIV/AIDS could have been reduced). For the countries who don't have free health care the disease is just a waste of medical resources instead used to cure other more serious diseases like cancer or tuberculosis... (Diseases that are not or not as easily preventable). Side Note: HIV/AIDS treatments would be better off in poorer countries. 2. You say that you cant force a person to not have sex with someone they want to have sex with. Same sex sex is wrong Look at Pedophiles or people who have sex with their pets, that's wrong and also unnatural. These examples are more extreme but look, Incest is also both people wanting to have sex but it is wrong and also unnatural. So that would mean lesbian and gay sex is also wrong. 3. If I were to meet an amazing girl who is so much alike to me and find out she was lesbian It would mess up the world because any boy would be attracted to someone who has same interests and is amazing. Suddenly finding out she is lesbian can hurt them because the natural way is to have male and female together. This means that gay and lesbians are ruining society.
LGBT Should Be Illegal

I see your point about the diseases, but it can also happen to anybody. Anybody can get diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, because sex went wrong, but still you can't force a person not to have sex with a person they want to be with. Its like you not being allowed to raise a child with your husband/wife. Humans were made to have sex with then opposite gender, I agree. However, it doesn't mess anything up at all. You never automatically know if a person is lesbian or gay, until they tell you. Its just like this, you just met a new girl, she's amazing, but you're just friends. You two are so much alike, so finally she tells you she's lesbian. Would you automatically think she's messing up the world?
LGBT Should Be Illegal

1. They are still the people with the most amount of aids and caused because of their pleasure. There are ways to avoid HIV/AIDS but Lesbian and gays still seem to have it mostly because of cretin positions during sex that cause this disease. They mange to still get aids and its an unnecessary increase of HIV/AIDS. 2. I understand what you are saying about discriminating them and what you are describing happened to the blacks. But the difference between this is that black people are a naturally born like, its a different type of the human race. Like dogs there are different types of dogs but they are naturally like that. They should not be treated like normal people because they are not normal. They are totally messing up they way humans are made. Humans are meant to breed with the opposite gender that's why there are 2. (if you don't understand this I can try clarify it a bit more). My 3rd point still stands.
LGBT Should Be Illegal

1. (Despite the illness in an LGBT, our economy would still have enough money to help the sick person) Just because it happens to be an LGBT who has this certain illness, it doesn't really mean anything. A person could have those same diseases who are not an LGBT, but it's ok for them to be treated? Why should we just treat regular people and not LGBT's? It's simply not fair, and it would affect the human population greatly. 2. (We all make our own choices) It's a persons choice in life to be an LGBT, we shouldn't discriminate them for what they want to do in life. It's almost like segregation. "You're an LGBT, so you can't eat at this restaurant", or "Reserved for non- LGBT's only". In a less serious sense, imagine you're at a job interview. You want to apply for this certain job, but you cant, because you made the choice in life to buy a dog! Now you can't get your job, simply because the owner of that business, just doesn't like dogs. Is that fair? You have to choose between your dog or a job? (I hope after reading this, you change your opinions about LGBT's, and never have to choose between a dog and being a Mc'Donald's employee.)
LGBT Should Be Illegal

I think being Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Trans Genders should be illegal. 1. It is unnatural, the Human species was made in 2 genders and both too breed. Lesbian, Gay and Bisexuals are not following this and it does not go together. Think of it like this, The North side of a magnet and a south side of a magnet stick together but both of the same side push each other away. You have to force it together so they touch. (I will come to Transgenders later) 2. Gay and Lesbians are the most common people with HIV/AIDS. They are the most people who have it. This is causing us to look into curing aids and spending more money on it instead of spending more money on curing other diseases. I am not saying HIV/AIDS should not be cured but we should not be focusing as much on curing something that comes from pleasure. HIV/AIDS treatments should at least be used in Africa instead of being given to gay people at the moment. Source: https://www.cdc.gov... 3. LGBT are messing up society. They are messing up the nature of humanity and gender. Transgenders are also unnatural because they are changing their gender that they were born with. This is teaching future generations that they can just mix up gender and mix everything up how you like. They are confusing and changing femininity and masculinity. 4. If you are religious (Christianity, Islam, Jewish (Top Religions)) its a sin to be LGBT. This brings me to marriage, marriage comes from religion and being LGBT in religion is a sin so how does this fit together.
Reducing of class sizes is good idea

Firstly, my opponent says: "Small schools do NOT mean small class sizes." Anyway, in this debate we are talking about reducing of class sizes, and I know that if we want to reduce class size, and in that way we need to teach more students, we should build more education places, which can be connected with different financial troubles. But, now, it's not main problem, main problem is - EDUCATION LEVEL. So, if we need to have high scores in education, we should reduce small classe, which can increase education level by different factors, which i published before. Secondly, my opponent says: "There are advantages to larger schools, namely economies of scale. Larger schools have the budgets for much better extracurricular activities and facilities for sports. "Large schools tend to have higher test scores and a wider diversity of course offerings, as well as more clubs, arts programs, higher performing sports teams, and other extracurricular activities such as school newspapers and social events. Some schools have abandoned the small school approach after failures to overcome these difficulties, even after being offered grants to continue these experiments." In this statement my opponent takes into account only the factors affecting the financial problems, but no problem of education level in the country. Finally, my opponent says: "If my school only had one really good Physics teacher, for example, I'd rather have larger class sizes but everyone in the school having the good teacher (during 6 different "periods") than forcing the school to hire another Physics teacher who isn't any good and then FORCE half the students to attend the bad teacher's class rather than the good teacher's class. Good teachers are already spread too thin – don't spread them even thinner." All we know about defferent humanity factors, so, if we have really good teacher, we should give him good students. If not, this teacher may lose stimulation to teaching. Because of bad behaviour of students and their distraction. (i mean "herd mentality") Thanks for debate.. It was my first experience. :D
Reducing of class sizes is good idea

Thanks. Anyway, if classrooms and schools are to be places where students' personal and learning needs are met, they should be small. Different debates on this theme show that: Students in schools with large populations of disadvantaged students perform least well on standardized assessments. Evidence also suggests that these schools often have the least-experienced teachers (NCTAF, 1996; Roza, 2001). >>> So, educators and policy-makers are looking for different strategies that will enable students to succeed on the new assessments and, that will increase students' learning opportunities. Small classes and small schools can be two such strategies. Furthermore, interest in class size and school size is important also in society. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has dedicated more than $250 million to reducing the size of U.S., high schools. The U.S. Department of Education has committed $125 million to fund small-school initiatives. In Boston, Chicago, and New York, small-school initiatives are increasing. Small-school associations, organised to support the change from comprehensive high schools to smaller learning communities, are springing up everywhere and include New Visions for Learning in New York, the Small Schools Workshop in 'Chicago (Illinois), the Small Schools Project in Seattle (Washington), and the Bay Area Coalition of Essential Schools in Oakland (California). So, some research shows that kids in larger classrooms have different disadvantages, which really interfere from studying: ● Large classes don't have good management strategies which decrease the quality of education. ● Large classes overcrowded whichase the quality of education, too. ● Not all students have classroom practice. ● Pupils' behaviour isn't good, because of different surroundings influence. ● Teacher in large classes has more load and stress. =>>>> Day et al. (1996) review of class size research. And some facts, which another researches show: ● In small classes prevails individualisation, that's why quality of teaching and studying is better. ● In small classes curriculum coverage organised better. ● Pupil in small classes pays more attention to teacher. ● In small classes teacher managing pupils' behaviour. ● There are more time and space for work. ● Small classes have better pupil-pupil and pupil-teacher relations. =>>>> Blatchford and Mortimore (1994) review of their analysis of class size (pp. 423–425) And there are another research, which shows advantages of small classes: ● more physical space; ● opportunity of group practices; ● establishment of routines; ● classroom discipline; ● tasks and the curriculum; ● teacher–pupil interaction and knowledge of children; ● teacher stress and enthusiasm; ● atmosphere/ethos; ● assessment and record keeping; ● pupil adjustment and peer relations; ● relationships with parents; ● special educational needs. =>>>> Blatchford & Martin (1998)
Reducing of class sizes is good idea

Thanks for the debate snuki. Jay P Greene in the book Education Myths debunks the two myths my opponent is discussing: that more money leads to education gains and that smaller class sizes lead to education gains. Greene writes "For twelfth grade students, who represent the end product of the education system, NAEP scores are basically flat over the past thirty years." [1] The NAEP is the national test administered by the Department of Education. Greene goes on to say that during this same time period, inflation-adjusted spending per pupil doubled from $4500 to $8700. [1] Also, during the same period class size decreased from 22.3 students to 15.9 students. [2] Both these things happened WITH NO RESULTANT INCREASE in NAEP scores. Greene attributes the failure to increase student achievement to money going to bureaucracy and construction projects, rather than to student learning, and the impetus to hire more teachers leading to the hiring of a lot of bad teachers. Eric Hanushek, an education researcher at Stanford, explains that if you have money to hire additional teachers, you're better off paying more money to higher BETTER teachers rather than MORE teachers. Bigger class sizes and better teachers result in more student learning than small class sizes and worse (or even "average" teachers). According to Hanushek, "Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You'd have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you'd get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile." [3] So we should not decrease class sizes because it has historically done nothing and if we have the money to hire additional teachers, we should instead create incentive schemes, like merit pay and higher starting salary, that attract BETTER teachers rather than MORE teachers. More is not equivalent to better. Negated ==Rebuttal== R1) Test scores are better This has already been refuted; the decrease in class sizes has failed to raise NAEP scores. My opponent cites no study here. R2) Good preparation for public life Kids in larger classrooms get the same boundaries and limitations as kids in small classrooms. In fact, the "bad teachers" are the ones who provide very little guidance and few boundaries (bad teachers have been caught reading newspapers in class rather than teaching), so it's better to have a good teacher to learn boundaries than have a small class. Also, in college, class sizes are larger. Good teachers and larger classes are a better preparation for later life. A bigger class forces students to learn how to work on their own to solve problems. If class sizes are too small, students are coddled too much by teachers always helping them, rather than letting them work problems out on their own, much the same way that mothers of single-children are statistically more overprotective. [1] page 10 [2] page 16 [3] http://www.gladwell.com...
Reducing of class sizes is good idea

Firstly, I want to say about 2 main points, witch cart this idea: 1.Test scores better than in normal-sized classes Small-sized classes give more benefits, because of teaching every student individually; how researches show this type of studying has better results in different examinations. Students in small classes are writing different examinations and tests better than students in normal-sized classes, because of lack of interruption by otheer students. 2.Good preparation to public life Small-sized classes can give more experience for students, before they will graduate. This way of studying is better to prepare pupils in kindergarten or grade school to high school by teaching some rules and regulations. So, a supporter of this point of view, Michael Klonsky, a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, said, - "A compelling body of research shows that when students are part of smaller and more intimated learning communities, they are more successful".
Homosexual couples can raise kids just as well as heterosexual couples.

This debate is based on my opponent's assertion that homosexual couples cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Hopefully he accepts the challenge to defend this assertion - otherwise we have no reason to consider it remotely credible. After all, considering he has so many sources claiming to validate his position, it shouldn't be difficult for him to defend his beliefs in a formal debate. There should be no semantics used in this discussion; I think it's obvious which position each of us will be defending. ..
Free will is not an illusion

This is one of the most common responses to the free will debate and speaks to why it is such a powerful illusion. It feels as if we do have the will power to change our futures...that if we were to go back in time we could have chosen to do otherwise.But, in reality, you have not provided any real evidence aside from saying you just "feel" like you have free will. The reality is that you are a product of nature and/or nurture...neither of which you had control over. The universe is just a collection of molecules moving about, colliding with one another, many of which form neural pathways in your brain that lead to what you experience as thoughts and consciousness.Here's a great article from the Atlantic:https://www.theatlantic.com...
blacks are less intelligent than whties

"i never contested that nurture has a signficant role in actual results between the races""in any case, con concedes that blacks might have a slight disadvantage due to brain size. to use his own words. it may be sight but it's there. i rest my case. "Cross-apply my opponent's first comment to my opponent's second. If nurture (culture, food, wealth) plays a significant role in differences in results between races, then it would be impossible to truly either (a) measure IQ or (b) get an objective reading between races, because they would be altered by the circumstances of that person's life. Moreover, the current difference is NOT a result of genetic differences, but of economic circumstances. If Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, and all the peoples of the world had the same economic experiences for millenia, then there would be no difference. As such, this is NOT a fixed difference, but one of circumstance. I have provided vastly more sources, including debunks of my opponent's sources. I have proven that IQ is biased and culturally sensitive. I have proven that poverty is more important to intelligence than race.
blacks are less intelligent than whties

"perhaps it wasn't consensus results, the studies i cited, but at least it was well done with a large number of people agreeing to it. do you have nything to contradict it?"Yeah, the rest of my evidence."nature v nuture. con argues nurture has a big effect on IQ."True statement.the differences in cranial size may be small, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. and it doesn't mean IQ isn't tied to cranial size.i note that perhaps some of the study was done wrong, but i'd assume it was done wrong for all races? we dont see enough from con's criticism to change the apparent conclusion we see based on what we can tell.What the study I referrenced noted is that the difference in brain size is very, very small between races versus intra-race, which means that while the average Black might have a slight disadvantage from initial brain size, but that the range of intelligence from brain size is much more variable for, say, a large and small-skulled Whites and one average White and one average Black."so not all asians are as smart as the study shows? is that all you are really arguing? on the points about 'so why are asians smarter?"I successfully argue, due to your lack of rebuttal, that the Asians present in America are biased as to the average intelligence of Asians in general, because of who does and does not emmigrate. The same occurs for Jews and basically everyone who had a choice to migrate or not."con concludes with arguing that there are established studies that say IQ and nurture are correlated, and there are actually present problems for blacks. perhaps. but how prevalent are these problems. and this doesn't negate the information about cranial size?"Seeing as the average White has an income of $55,412[1] and the average Black of $32,229[1], a difference of 41.838%, I think it's fair to say that poverty plays a pretty big role in Black lives as opposed to White lives. The same occurs for Hispanics, with $38,624[1], and for minorities in general. Whites are rich -- this makes them be nurtured to become more intelligent, due to lack of malnutrition and other issues."all con offers is some speculation, that doesn't do enough to negate the main contention the studies and I have offered."I offered 19 sources, to your 3, on the nature of IQ, race, intelligence, poverty, and culture, and proved that your studies were flawed. I proved that poverty is more of a factor than race, and thus that even if Black people ARE less intelligent currently, it is near-completely due to poverty. If we reduce Black poverty, or Hispanic poverty, and poverty in general,we will have a more intelligent Black citizenry and citizenry in general.Thank you.[1] http://www.infoplease.com...;
blacks are less intelligent than whties

perhaps it wasn't consensus results, the studies i cited, but at least it was well done with a large number of people agreeing to it. do you have nything to contradict it? nature v nuture. con argues nurture has a big effect on IQ. the differences in cranial size may be small, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. and it doesn't mean IQ isn't tied to cranial size. i note that perhaps some of the study was done wrong, but i'd assume it was done wrong for all races? we dont see enough from con's criticism to change the apparent conclusion we see based on what we can tell. so not all asians are as smart as the study shows? is that all you are really arguing? on the points about 'so why are asians smarter?" con concludes with arguing that there are established studies that say IQ and nurture are correlated, and there are actually present problems for blacks. perhaps. but how prevalent are these problems. and this doesn't negate the information about cranial size? all con offers is some speculation, that doesn't do enough to negate the main contention the studies and I have offered.
blacks are less intelligent than whties

intelligence is proportion to brain size. african americans have smaller brains than whites. they also have lower IQs. IQ tests are debatable, but it's still evidence. to be fair, whites are not as smart as most asians. whites are known to have a wider rage of intelligence, but overall be less intelligent. hence, more genius whites, and more retarded whites. ---- "general consensus among scientists as published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" shows a consensus among scientists that average IQ are as followed in America. Blacks 85. Whites 100. East Asians 106. Further studies done and published in science journals show IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic. Minnesota Twins Study by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, the most famous twin study done, shows that identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similiar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of .80. Cranial size studies show published in the science journal Intelligence 1997, 25, pg 15 shows the average cranial size as followed. Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3. The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals. "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. So why are Asians smarter? More specifically Northeast Asians? The scientific theories among scientists today hold the notion that the humans that left Africa 110,000 years ago into colder climates of Europe and Northern Asia required more thought and planning to obtain food than that of Africa. And that Northern Asia had more drastic temperatures than that of Europe. It's evolution at work. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ African Americans was 85; Latino 89; White 103; Asian 106; and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically..."