BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should probable cause be used in U.S. schools rather than reasonable suspicion on student searches

BEFORE WE BEGIN PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FIRST ROUND REVOVLES AROUND BRINGING UP YOUR ARGUMENT, SECOND ROUND IS DEDICATED TO ATTACKS, AND IN THE THIRD ROUND NO NEW INFORMATION MAY BE INSERTED, THIS WOULD BE THE SUMMARY ROUND, WHERE YOU STATE ALL THE ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE WON USING INFORMATION YOU --->ALREADY<---- STATED. I will start off with definitions: Probable Cause: a reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well-founded (Merriam-Websters dictionary) Reasonable Suspicion: : an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time (Merriam-Websters dictionary) My stance is with Probable Cause standards in schools, due to three major points. 1. The use of the "reasonable" suspicion standard undermines democratic socialization. As stated by Sarah Forman, a professor at the Detroit Mercy School of Law, states that "the reasonable suspicion standard violates the 4th amendment protection against unwarranted search. " This absurdity expresses to the youth, that order and discipline are given priority over their individual rights. As a result of this, students are made to believe they are second class citizens. These pupils are taught their rights under the constitution in class, and yet they have them violated only to send conflicting messages about the constitution to them. School officials can not expect student to grow up as good citizens when the school authorities disregard these fundamental principles regarding our constitution. 2. "Probable cause would remove Qualified immunity, which would force school administrators to be held accountable for their actions." -Rutledge Devallis of Police Magazine. As the fourth amendment mandates, you need Probable Cause to obtain a search warrant. With this warrant, school administrators that wrongfully search a student may be punished without having qualified immunity to back them up as they would require a warrant to search in the first place, saving young innocent lives from utter humiliation. 3. Probable Cause offers the proper protection for K-12 students." Outside of the school context, a "probable Cause standard" is almost always required." -Mckelwee, Washburn Law Journal. Outside of schools, probable cause is almost always mandatory, and so criminals that have done wrong would receive more rights than innocent pupils that may be found of holding no crime. Comparing criminals on the streets to students learning in classrooms is not only disrespectful, but also alarming. The fact that I must compare criminals to students and their rights is absurd, but with probable cause we can end this and give our youth the rights that they deserve. The points I have made are: 1. Reasonable Suspicion undermines democratic socialization 2. Probable Cause would remove Qualified Immunity 3. Probable Cause offers the proper protection for K-12 students.
God exists

Oh, you want to run off on that topic because you cannot refute my point that religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, are completely and utterly baseless!!Again, you have nothing but speculation, copied arguments and word games. Not a spec of hard evidence any god or gods exist.But as I have said so many times, I do not put the possibility of a god or gods existing at zero and that is not my main point by a long shot. I am willing to give that one to you for arguments sake regardless.My points stand. As nobody can offer a spec of hard evidence any god is intervening in our world in any way, takes an interest in human affairs, communicates to us in any way etc. (all evidence in fact points against it), we can safely say that all of the religions and gods people have worshiped throughout human history were created by people, PARTICULARLY THE ABRAHAMIC ONE!!!!!
God exists

Unfortunately my opponent still refuses to respond to the arguments I have presented. He repeats his personal opinions regarding religions ad nauseam, which is irellevant to the issue at hand. Futhermore, he continually pokes jabs at the Abrahamic God. This is due to previous discussions he and I have had. Once again, they are irellevant to the topic at hand, and do not affect the Kalam Cosmological argument.
God exists

Maybe in your desperate little mind!As for proving a god exists, you fail. If you had hard evidence and not just word games and old philosophical arguments you tried to copy from others, you could win a Nobel Prize!!Most importantly, you have repeatedly ran from the fact that whether or not any god or gods exist is only a side issue for me. I dont think they do, but I do not put the chances at zero either. My main point all along is that all religions are the creations of men as are the gods people worship, particularly the Abrahamic god.As you cannot offer one spec of hard evidence that any god that intervenes in the world and human affair in any way exists, let alone show what characteristics that god has or prove what he wants from us, you have totally conceded my main point and admitted religions are based on pure human speculation.That means either you agree with me or you lose. I am fine with either!!! Either way, the abrahamic god in particular is a sick joke!!
God exists

Unfortunately, he has failed to address the argument presented, and commits numerous Red-Herring logical fallacies. To begin with, my opponent demands "hard evidence. " I shall assume by this he means "scientific proof. " But this is absurd. The existence of God is primarily a metaphysical matter, not a scientific one. Thus, this qualifies as a Red-Herring fallacy. Then my opponent objects against religion. However, the topic of this debate is not regarding religion per se. Once again, these rebuttals are irrelevant and do not address the issue at hand. Another Red-Herring fallacy. Until my opponent refutes the argument I have presented, the resolution remains affirmed. Back to my opponent!
God exists

Your usual blabber and trying to rehash arguments others made!Not going to get into the same old which came first, god or the universe argument, Yada Yada!You have no hard evidence a god exists. If you did, then WHERE IS YOUR NOBEL PRIZE?!?!?Regardless, I DO NOT put the possibility of an existence of a god or gods at zero (just highly unlikely), and considered myself primarily agnostic until recently. Even IF there is a god or gods, there is ZERO hard evidence that god or gods concerns itself in human affairs or intervenes the physical world or communicates with humanity in any way. That makes ALL RELIGIONS THE CREATIONS OF PEOPLE!!So, go ahead and assume there is a god or gods out there. I have no problem with that. What causes problems is when people arrogantly say they know what a god wants, thinks etc. Lets see:1. hard evidence a god or god intervenes in human affairs or the physical world in any way2. hard evidence to prove this god or gods has/have certain characteristics3. hard evidence this god or gods has/have communicated their thoughts to humanity in any wayIf you cannot show hard evidence for the above, you admit all religions are based on pure speculation and the Abrhamic god in particular is a lie created by men.Can we agree on that point?? If so, go ahead and assume that a god or gods exist. Just admit that it is pure speculation and you have no idea what that god or gods are like even if they do exist and that all religions are the creations of men.
Single- sex education is better for education

The first thing we need to do is define education. Education for the purpose of this debate is the ability to gain scholastic knowledge. This is based on test scores, or that is within the scope that my adversary wanted to debate this. Higher ScoresThis is in general a truism. Single sex schools always produce higher test and exam scores[1][2]. Some studies even show this " Our analyses show that single-sex schools are causally linked with both college entrance exam scores and college-attendance rates for both boys and girls. Attending all-boys schools or all-girls schools, rather than attending coeducational schools, is significantly associated with higher average scores on Korean and English test scores. Compared with coeducational schools, single-sex schools have a higher percentage of graduates who moved on to four-year colleges. " [3]In addition more boys tend to pass reading in single sex schools On balance people in single sex schools often spend more time with homework and studying as well Also just all around grades tend to be higher. Test grades on balance are always higher in single sex schools [1][2][3] [1] . http://ftp.iza.org...[2] . http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu...[3] . http://www.singlesexschools.org...
Single- sex education is better for education

I don,t understand why some people are in favour of single- sex education. When we say boys and girls are equal then why not during the studies. Co-ed schools / colleges increases ones self confidence. The students are more free and comfortable with students of opposite sex. If they have not been to co-ed school / college, they might find it difficult to adjust in future when they are doing their jobs. So we can say co- education makes the base of a student stronger for better future.
The attempt to justify the presence of a metaphysical reality/God through rational means is futile.

As Cheekychow has chosen not to engage with my arguments, Despite having had over a week to do so, I feel that there is little else for me to add. Please vote Con. Not because Cheekychow has forfeited the debate but because a strong case has been made to show that studying the various arguments traditionally presented for God"s existence isn"t futile. This debate isn"t about whether the theist"s case ultimately succeeds, Simply that we cannot even begin to make such a judgement without first giving both sides a fair hearing.
The attempt to justify the presence of a metaphysical reality/God through rational means is futile.

The Age of Enlightenment brought to us many things; rationalism, Secular thought etc. The direct result of these ideas was a turning away from the transcendent with the rise of atheism, Secularism, Anti-theism. I propose that it is a misallocation of intellectual resources to try to battle against atheism on a rational battlefield as rationalism is exactly that which facilitated the rise of materialist worldviews in the first place. The metaphysical/transcendent must be attained through contemplation, Not reasoned debate, And this is the angle that must be pursued if we are to reverse the damage done to the human condition through the Age of Enlightenment.
Do you think you deserve to die because you are gay and many of other god's absurdities? God does

I am seriously thinking you didn't read any of what I wrote last round. If you had, you would have seen that I literally said that "in no way do I expect you to open those links. ... Please go ahead an ignore the links. Everything I want to say is contained in the text of the debate". It seems you are not here for actual debate, but are more interested in personal attacks and throwing out expletives. I feel sorry for you, for if you continue to act like this in other debates, you'll never really experience any of the benefit this site has to offer. Since there seems to be little chance my opponent will read this, I'll instead turn and address any potential voters. The rules of the debate were laid out by Pro in the first round: "Prove that your god of the bible has a moral compass of love, care, peace, kindness, harmony etc in which case the verses above and god's absurd immorality would not exist." Although Pro led with arguments showing the god depicted in the old testament supported some abhorrent behavior, I countered, stating that my god of the bible (as specified in the rules) is not the god of the old testament. My god of the bible is Jesus, who said none of those things. In the second round, Pro linked some videos, mostly questioning the existence of Jesus and whether the story of Jesus was historical fact. Pro also asserted that Jesus was "clearly false and fraudulent" without providing any justification for that claim, and tried to steer the debate back to the god of the old testament. I responded saying that "my god of the bible" is Jesus. There is no other and talking of any other god is outside the rules of the debate. I accepted the fact that the bible is human written and is not a perfect document. I showed that, although one cannot prove Jesus' existence (although there is strong evidence for it), that fact is irrelevant. I gave the example that we cannot prove Socrates or Confucius existed, but it is still possible for even an inaccurate of fictional account of someone's teachings to have a profound influence on a person's life and world-view. Addressing the objective of the rules, I provided four examples of Jesus' teachings that show he professed a morality of love, caring and kindness in the bible: 1) Love one another 2) Love your enemies 3) Serve your fellow humans in humility 4) Give to the poor without boasting I was planning on providing one more example on self-sacrifice this round, however, Pro has not challenged any of my previous four examples, so I will let my argument stand on those. Instead of debating the points I raised, Pro's arguments have devolved into name calling and using expletives. I have done my best to treat Pro with respect throughout this debate, however my opponent has unfortunately not offered me the same courtesy. I close this debate confident that I have presented the stronger case, in a manner fitting the spirit of this site. I ask for your vote. Thank you.
Do you think you deserve to die because you are gay and many of other god's absurdities? God does

I don't pay attention to contradictory hypocrites like you. If you expect me to look at the links you presented, and you cannot take a look at the videos I presented because how many times do I have to repeat it THEY ARE ALL CORRECT, this debate is over. Now its not my problem that you cannot look at rock solid evidence. That's yours. And it is within the typical christian bloodline to totally ignore evidence especially when slapped in the face with it because he knows---he's---wrong. Regardless, I'm certainly not looking at anything from biblegateway. This is supposed to be an intelligent educated debate. And you have the f--king nerve to present me with ANY links to look at? Much less 8 of them? GET---THE---F---K---OUT---OF---HERE.
Do you think you deserve to die because you are gay and many of other god's absurdities? God does

"I am sorry to hear that. I was really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter, and why you believe Jesus is a liar and fraud." Oh absolutely 100% were you not looking forward to ANYTHING I had to say. Not one f--king word. I really hate it when people like you flat out lie. Because if you cared as to what I had to say, then you would have watched the videos in which I do not have the time nor effort to type up at least an 3 million characters, in which case this debate would only take up 50,000. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME NOR EFFORT TO READ 50,000 CHARACTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!! As watching videos takes up one helluva lot less effort, may not take up less time though. But you ruined yourself with such stupidity. Now if you do not have the time nor effort to watch the videos, in which contains a whole ton of more information than you could ever present within your f--king lifetime, then that's not my problem, that's entirely yours. Oh but wait, its perfectly OK that you present me with truly idiotic links that you 100% expect me to look at in which biblegateway is one of the absolute worst websites as far as christianity is concerned and is amazingly biased. So guess what snookums, since you except me to look at these links as your evidence, and you will not look at the videos as my evidence, that 100% makes you a contradictory hypocrite just like your god in which you cannot even prove exists. So once again duhsville, I have no time nor effort to pay any attention to what you have to say. PE-IR-OD.
Do you think you deserve to die because you are gay and many of other god's absurdities? God does

I am sorry to hear that. I was really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter, and why you believe Jesus is a liar and fraud. If you ever change your mind, let me know. I'll be happy to restart or continue this debate anytime. Before parting, I do want to say that I hope you start putting your own personal arguments and reasoning into debates instead of relying on youtube videos to make your points for you. There is so much growth that can come from formulating your arguments, putting your beliefs out there for others to test, and then defending or amending what you believe. I feel like I've already gained some new insight just in our first two rounds. But this growth can only happen if the arguments come from within, and are not simply someone else's. Parroting others' youtube arguments is no better than Christians who just believe what the church tells them to. Without independent thought that you allow to be tested in open scrutiny, one is merely a mindless puppet for the church/atheist youtubers. I hope you don't fall into that trap. As this may be our final round, I will finish by sharing the example of Christ's love and kindness that means the most to me: On the night he was to be betrayed, Jesus took water and a towel and washed his disciples' feet. Although he was revered as their teacher, master and Lord, Jesus took on the job of the lowest of servants, performing one of the lowest of services. I find it almost impossible to imagine the president or queen doing something similar today. "When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. 'Do you understand what I have done for you?' he asked them. 'You call me "Teacher" and "Lord," and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another"s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.'" (1) Jesus was not a being of power. Jesus was not a being of judgement. Jesus was a being of service, for he "did not come to be served, but to serve". (2) (3) Therefore, to be Christian is to serve others. While there are many who use Christianity for righteousness, to justify a behavior or belief, or gain power from the masses, these are not real Christians. They only use Christianity to further their own selfish purpose. Real Christians do as Christ did, they live to help others, and give their money, time and talents to serve others who are in need. Jesus has a moral compass of love, care and kindness, and whenever someone shows that love, the legacy of Jesus' life is continued. Best wishes. 1. https://www.biblegateway.com... 2. https://www.biblegateway.com... 3. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Do you think you deserve to die because you are gay and many of other god's absurdities? God does

Well first of all, prove that your christ even existed, in which there is no proof of this, and most certainly even less there is absolutely no proof that god gave this christ any powers to break his laws from the OT and yet this christ did in fact do tat so that means that christ is a fraud and a fake, that is if you believe in god from the OT and onto the NT. And even worse god was completely immoral in the OT, so POOF he is going to change and suddenly become moral in the NT? Now pay close attention to these videos" http://www.youtube.com... - jesus wasn"t jesus (Aron Ra) http://www.youtube.com... - The True Core of the jesus Myth (Christopher Hitchens) http://www.youtube.com... - Did jesus Exist? http://www.youtube.com... - Why christianity is Unreasonable (Richard Carrier) http://www.youtube.com... - Biggest Lie - The fourth gospel ("The first striking revision in the 4th gospel is that the ministry of jesus has ballooned out from from one year to three. The writers not only make a reference not only from one but to three distinct passover festivals. Now was this just a tradition that some early christians held to a three year ministry and others to a one year ministry? Can anyone honestly maintain that whole dialogues could be remembered word for word for many decades and yet believers have no common agreement whether these words were said during one year or during three years?") Um duh. Do you REALLY THINK jesus existed? http://www.youtube.com... - The Gospel According to Carrier (Richard Carrier states jesus may have possibly existed, but scrap all the mythology) http://www.youtube.com... - Proving the Historicity of Jesus? Tracie and David http://www.youtube.com... - Stephanie Thomason vs Matt Dillahunty, or how not to debate an Atheist! (skip to the 7:00 mark!!!) Oh this one is good and Pro is the caller with his furry tongue. http://www.youtube.com... - What did jesus do for you? Oh and oh yeah we, that means you and I, are NOT paying any attention to that pig christ who was a false messiah, who lied several times in YOUR bible and broke god"s word such as working on the sabbath in which required the death penalty, in which you in no possible follow his teachings, and trust me, you do NOT want to dig deep into that because it will ruin your beliefs IF and only IF you are remotely intelligent and have an education. Now it is so blatantly point---blank---obvious that in no possible way have you read your bible AT ALL in which YOUR god would NEVER use text is the first place, the worst form of communication possible, PE-IR-OD. So once again prove that your "god", who cares about that drab named "christ" who was clearly false and fraudulent, of the bible has a moral compass of love, care, peace, kindness, harmony etc in which case the verses above and god's absurd immorality would not exist. Now here"s another video for you to watch which proves you 100$% wrong. Watch it. It will clear up all the questions you have. (The last video) http://www.youtube.com... - But That"s the Old Testament
Do you think you deserve to die because you are gay and many of other god's absurdities? God does

My challenge in this debate: Prove that my god of the bible has a moral compass of love, care, peace, kindness, harmony etc in which case the verses above and god's absurd immorality would not exist. I am a Christian, meaning I am a follower of Christ and Christ's teachings. Christ taught love, care, peace, kindness and harmony. My God of the bible commanded this: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". (1) (2) The gospels lay out a very strong case for my God being a loving God, and I will be happy to provide more instances of this in the upcoming rounds if needed. I am not a follower of the god in the old testament. Being Christian does not mean you have to believe the whole bible is truth. It does not mean that you have to believe or accept everything in the bible. The bible itself was assembled by humans, and was not formed until hundreds of years after Jesus' death. (3) Humans made decisions on what books to include in the bible and which ones to exclude. Jesus never said that this future collection of historical and yet-to-be-written books was the definitive word of God. In fact, he said the opposite, specifically that only through learning and following the example of Jesus can anyone truly learn about God: "No one comes to the Father except through me. " (4) Thus, the verses you quoted, while interesting historical insights into Jewish history, are not the words of my God of the bible. My God of the bible is the one depicted in the gospels, one of love, care, peace, kindness and compassion. 1. . https://www.biblegateway.com... 2. . https://www.biblegateway.com... 3. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . https://www.biblegateway.com...