BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

Point 1: Reverse Discrimination: Allan Bakke was twice denied to the university of Cali. medical school, because of the schools "quota" system. He worked hard all his life and had excellent grades, but it was all wasted because of affirmative action. People who aren't qualified to go to college shouldn't be going to college. With affirmative action, spots are being reserved for minorities who are not qualified. Now. Let's look at some major flaws with affirmative action. Contention 1: Less Qualified: Affirmative action was created to finally end discrimination and give everybody a level playing field, but it doesn't really do that. This is not a level playing field if you are reserving spots in colleges for people who are not qualified. In fact, as I stated earlier, this is a simple case of reverse discrimination. If spots were being reserved in colleges for white students, all hell would break loose. But it's simply a case of reverse discrimination. They let people go to college because of their skills that pertain to a certain area of study. Not because they are black. Just because you are a minority doesn't mean that you suddenly deserve to go to college. If you are a minority that doesn't mean that you should have a better chance of getting into college that someone who is trying to get a degree in engineering, or something important. So for the two reasons that affirmative action doesn't fulfill its purpose, and that people who are less qualified are going to college. I encourage a con ballot. Sorry about how short that was. I'm in a hurry. Thanks, Ben
Should cities support the homeless and try and help

You clearly don't know the prostitution is illegal as well, if you caught selling your body your arrested too. And they probably arrested those homeless people at the super bowl for either asking people to panhandle or abusing drugs. Besides, having parents that make low income doesn't mean you cant get an education. Public school is free so either way they would've gotten an education to begin with. Also education is required by law from kindergarten through 12th grade so its not like they didn't have a chance. You also stated in your argument that we should give the homeless rights. They have the same rights as us, the city cant take away peoples rights. And like Cheyennebodie said in the comments their is no such thing as homelessness, just workload's. If they would just get a part-time job they wouldn't be in this predicament. Its their own damn fault that their homeless. Besides its not even that hard to find a low paying job or a cheap apartment. You also said that were busy helping people over seas than our own people. First off its not the city helping them its volunteers who want to help those deprived countries. Second, the people in other countries are in more need than our own homeless. The people within other countries are suffering from disease and famine and drought. While the homeless people here aren't, yes I know they are hungry and cold but atlas they aren't suffering like the people in third world countries. And you stated Indianapolis jailed up the homeless, that's only one city. Your city may have different views of homelessness. That's not every city's belief.
Should cities support the homeless and try and help

It's not that the don't don't life seriously , it's that they may have not been given the se chances as others. Using examples of homeless people that I am personally friends with, they could have been abandoned as a child or parents could abuse drugs or they could have low income families. All are very common. Homeless people usually have a reason to be homeless and it is not because they are lazy or they abuse drugs. That is a stereotype and stereotypes are true but only for a all fraction of the group but we make an over generalization. Homelessness is NOT a crime however so I do not understand why we as cities are arresting them for being homeless. For homeless rights cities should not be discriminating against people of a lower social class. Homeless is a serious problem and our community including the city should be trying to stop it. Not ignore it because soon enough the problem will erupt and when it does the city will have no choice to help and they will lose lots of money because of it. However if they suck it up now and help out and provide public services and help people with a 5 step program and give them rights, it will cost the city (indianapolis) so much less money. We have no problem with helping people over seas. That's great, but we can barley help those who are living in our own backyard. Once we can handle taking care of our own people we can start helping. But the city should be protecting and helping it's people not hurting. I bet you didn't know that when the superbowl came to indianapolis the city threw the homeless in jail. Not only is that expensive, but it is also horribly wrong. We said that they made our city ugly. Having homeless people on the streets is ugly, but having hookers wander around isn't. It's time for our cities to stop hiding the homeless and it's time to man up and help them.
Should cities support the homeless and try and help

Part of why they are on the street is because of the city. Not all homeless people use drugs. Part of the reason they don't pay taxes is because they don't have a house or a job and they don't have a job because they usually have lost their identification so they cant get a job. In my city, you want to know how those people lost their ID? The city. They came and took all the homeless peoples belongings and told them to leave. Where the hell were they supposed to go? It is the cities job to help their own citizens get back up on their feet so that they can pay taxes and support the city. instead we ignore the problem and it grows and grows, soon enough it will be too big and a little to late. The money is there to support the homeless. It costs more to arrest a homeless person than it does to help them, so I have no idea why why keep arresting them. To touch on homeless rights. In my city the thirteenth largest city in the country, we tried to make panhandling illegal, which violates the First Amendment.
Death Penalty

Happy Thanksgiving y'all!!!! I love debates like this when the other guy forfeits. I am thankful for that forfeiture. Here's my first argument: The death penalty is just in that it punishes the offence of murder in the only way that can hope to retribute adaquately, prevents the vast expense of imprisonment for life, and can prevent crime. If X doesn't respond I win. I hope Mr. X does disappoint me and give me an easy win. Have a great day all!!
Story Time! continue the sentence with one of your own! P.S. This is my 2nd debate

...singing Gene Kelley's song "Singin' in the Rain." Bill thought this was very ironic and too frightening so he killed all of the singing frogs by smashing them. He then approached the strange, pink tree and noticed that the 44th governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee was sitting at the top completely naked whistling the tune of...
Story Time! continue the sentence with one of your own! P.S. This is my 2nd debate

bed... he looked around and realized that he was in his bedroom. he got up and heard some noise coming from upstairs. as he went upstairs bill realized that it was music playing. he got up in the attic and saw the headlights coming at him again with beiber still behind the wheel singing. when he got hit this time bill never woke up
Story Time! continue the sentence with one of your own! P.S. This is my 2nd debate

...until he realized that Mike Huckabee was at the top of the very tree he was climbing. "Wow I'm an idiot" Bill states as he climbs back down the tree. This chain of events led Bill to wave the cab down that was conveniently driving next to the pink tree, and allowed him to give the cab driver his address. "Take me there my good man, I have had an interesting night." Said Bill, in a near-perfect Morgan Freeman voice. The cab driver then turned around...
If chuck norris were to fight bruce lee in his prime bruce lee would win

Yes while he is a international karate champion, you must look at the feats that bruce lee has done over his life here are some of the many: 1) After he got famous, a lot of people thought they could beat Bruce – they would walk up to him, tap their foot on the ground (symbolizing a challenge) and then proceed to attack him! Well… maybe not that literal, but Bruce’s popularity certainly attracted a lot trying to prove they’re better than him. One day, while filming Enter the Dragon, an extra taunted Bruce Lee and challenged him to fight. The whole thing went on like this:"This kid was good. He was no punk. He was strong and fast, and he was really trying to punch Bruce’s brains in. But Bruce just methodically took him apart. ""I mean Bruce kept moving so well, this kid couldn’t touch him…Then all of a sudden, Bruce got him and rammed him into the wall and swept him, he proceeded to drop his knee into his opponent’s chest, locked his arm out straight, and nailed him in the face repeatedly. " Typical of Bruce Lee, after the fight he didn’t fire the extra – he actually gave his challenger lesson on how to improve! 2) Most martial art films are sped up to make fighting scenes appear fast, but not Bruce Lee’s. His moves were too fast to be captured on the regular 24 frames per second film – so they had to film him at 32 fps, and run the film slower so you can see his moves. 3) In 1964, Bruce was invited to a karate championship in Long Beach, California. There he performed his famous "One Inch Punch," where he would deliver a devastating blow from only an inch away, sending his opponent flying back! Bob Baker of Stockton, whom Bruce hit, said "I told Bruce not to do this type of demonstration again. When he punched me that last time, I had to stay home from work because the pain in my chest was unbearable. " 4) After his recovery from the back injury, Bruce Lee practiced incessantly to get back the previous vigor in his body. There are records which show that he practiced kicks up to thousand times a day. 5) Bruce could throw grains of rice up into the air and then catch them in mid-flight using chopsticks. 6) Bruce once caved in a protective headgear made from heavy steel rods, rods that had previously withstood several blows from a sledgehammer. Now when it comes to karate bruce lee's JKD punch has been proven to be more powerful than even a karate's best punch in the first video on the right from 4:03 to 5:02 you will see that it states this . http://www.youtube.com... now in the seacond video you will see the destructive power of bruce lee's punch from only an inch away. . http://www.youtube.com...
The use of "A.D." verses the use of "C.E."

My opponent misunderstands both my position and his own in today's debate, and this is the ultimate reason why you must vote in opposition of the resolution in this debate. The foremost reason why you must negate the resolution is because the Affirmative has failed to uphold his burden of proving the resolution to be true. The only claim that he has made in support of the resolution was that "A.D. is an appropriate representation because it does not carry a mis-representation of what time period it is actually talking about." However, I addressed this issue in the very first round, by stating that there is no way that Jesus of Nazareth could have been born before 4 BC. This is a common misunderstanding about exactly when Christ was born. This point has one unaddressed by my opponent. The affirmative has made the claim that the "common" in Common Era implies standardization of measurement. I countered that there was no such implication and challenged my opponent to provide any sort of logic or evidence suggesting such a correlation. I was met with silence. Finally, the Affirmative has failed to address the issues of political correctness as raised by myself in the first round. This coincides with his total disregard for my arguments and is simply one more reason why a Negative ballot is necessary. The PRO has failed to support his side and has ignored the issues raised in the debate that oppose his viewpoints. Ultimately there exists no substantive reason not to vote in favor of the Opposition. Thank you.
The use of "A.D." verses the use of "C.E."

My opponent's argument is, in essence, C.E. does not imply standardization. In other words, the notation COMMON ERA does not imply commonality. If COMMON era does not imply COMMONALITY, then what does it imply? I made the argument that "common" implied standardization (as this is the only TRUE commonality that is globally recognized in BOTH a SECULAR and NON-SECULAR context). Furthermore, historians use the notation Common Era BEFORE this standardization and commonality existed. Thus, although recognized by scholars that are overly concerned with being politically correct the common era (as it implies) had not actually began. My opponent misunderstands my argument (I'm not arguing with what the text books say, I am arguing with whether or not the era in question was in fact common). The only evidence my opponent can produce to support his position is what the texts books say (and apparently wikipedia :P), not whether the terminology is actually accurate (which is what I'm questioning). Basically, historians today try to slap a politically correct label on the year (I accept this to be true). My argument is against whether or not this label is actually an appropriate representation of the time period that it notates. A.D. is an appropriate representation because it does not carry a mis-representation of what time period it is actually talking about. Furthermore, the only substantiation that my opponent provides is http://en.wikipedia.org... . While he has held his ground in this debate he has: mis-understood my arguments, failed to attack them properly, failed to uphold or defend his own standard of accuracy and failed to substantiate his claims with legitimate sources. Thus, my opponent has no position left to stand on and you are left with one option. Vote PRO. Thank you
The use of "A.D." verses the use of "C.E."

My opponent posits a strange argument stating that the common era did not begin in the year 1 C.E.. The Affirmative fails to realize that the beginning of the C.E. notation is arbitrary and set by historians so that it is easy to transition between a Gregorian A.D. notation system to the Common Era system. The notation "common ea" does not imply a standardization of measurement: in fact, the first use of C.E. notation was by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 in order to replace the Diocletian years. (Diocletian was, of course, infamous for persecuting early Christians.) If my opponent wishes to prove that the Common Era did not begin in 1. C.E., he will have to post something more substantive than his own opinion. However, even if we assume that the C.E. notation is inaccurate, you as a judge still must vote in opposition of the resolution. Why? Because the resolution posits that the A.D. notation is SUPERIOR to the C.E. notation. If we are to believe my opponent's unfounded claims, then both are inaccurate and thus inadequate; that is, undr my opponent's reasoning neither is preferable. My opponent has yet to put forth one argument to support the resolution, and still must prove that A.D. notation is superior. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The use of "A.D." verses the use of "C.E."

My opponent seems to suggest that accuracy is the standard for which you ought to vote. He establishes this position "chronology has thus been proven inaccurate". However, if accuracy is the standard for which my opponent suggests that you should vote on, then I submit to you the arrangement that this is what undoes my opponent's position. He talks about a four year inaccuracy. However, how long is the time window between when the term C.E. applies and when things were considered "common"? Consider: year 1 C.E. Even by year 1001 C.E. (1,000 YEARS AFTER THE "COMMON ERA" HAD BEGUN) measurements had not been standardized. In other words, 1,000 years AFTER history SAYS that the common era began the common era had NOT in fact began. 1,000 years AFTER we say the common ear began, the common era had NOT actually began. All for the sake of political correctness. My opponent has been thwarted by his own standard. In this light I urge a vote in affirmation of the resolution. Thank you.
The use of "A.D." verses the use of "C.E."

For those who may not know or for those who wish to reacquaint themselves, the terminology in conflict are the BC/AD calendar notation and the BCE/CE notation. B. C. and A. D. respectively stand for Before Christ and the Latin Anno Domini or "Year of Our Lord". Both serve as direct references to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth and are thus base in Christian doctrine. Thus, scholars and historians have recently begun to use (B. )C. E. to annotate years. Arguments in favor of "Common Era" notation usually either criticize Christianity as a historical source and try to secularize the notation, or otherwise claim that the reference to Christianity is an issue of Western dominance and try to expand the concept to an idea that is more readily accepted to those who aren't so familiar with Western theology. My opponent will no doubt oppose these views, and I will negate them as necessary. However, there is also a major advantage to using CE notation even under the pretense of Christian theology. The earliest known use of the AD calendar dates to Victor of Tunnena, who ruled during the 6th century C. E. (or A. D. ). in order to devote the calendar to Christ, Victor determined when Jesus was born using a chronology of the Roman Empire. However, this chronology has thus been proven inaccurate. We know that, according to the Bible, shortly after Jesus was born, King Herod the Great ordered all Jewish males under the age of two to be slaughtered in an attempt to eliminate the supposed Messiah. However, historical records tell us that Herod died in the year 4 B. C. Thus, even those wishing to devote the calendar to Christ do so using a misleading and inaccurate method. The resolution is negated not only because it is overtly religious and unnecessarily Western, but because of a historical miscalculation. It turns out that A. D. 1 was actually at least four years after "The year of Our Lord". C. E. notation has the advantages of cultural acceptance and would not threaten to mislead those who believe to know the time of Christ's birth. I await my opponent's response.
Morality and Determinism are compatible.

For this debate the dictionary definition of morality doesn't quite apply significantly because it doesn't render 'free will'.I would like to define morality as "The conscious awareness of an objective right and wrong applicable in an absolute sense to all situations an individual is faced with."Determinism says it's impossible for one to consciously choose what to do because conscious choices, such as to rape one's own daughter, were already determined by fate/logical probability that there is no power whatsoever for that individual to act according to a morality of any kind because the next time they are faced with an opportunity to rape their daughter (if raping was moral and not raping was not) then it would be nonsensical for them NOT to rape her, however they might not.Another issue with drawing these two theories together is that of neutral things.If something is either moral or immoral, then is one person buying a green shoe more correct than those who do not? Or the reverse? There can't be and equivalent moral correctness in a person who wears a red shoe and one who wears a green shoe if morality is applied and thus a true morality of any kind is impossible since according to determinism the choice of green or red was predetermined anyway.
Morality and Determinism are compatible.

All right simmer down I just wanted to make things clear, anyway... This argument was invalid. I did not state at all that he was a psychopath, socio path, or narcissist. And also remember, I said If "everyone in the world was like him", I'm sorry if I hadn't made it clear, but I meant it as in each of them are in parallel universes that contain people just like them. Even so, If everyone was a psychopath then, we would not be able to form a Hierarchy in our society, everyone will competing for he top, and will probably as you say "take a fellow inmate hostage, smash his skull in and sample his brains with a spoon as nonchalantly as if you were downing a soft-boiled egg."....
Morality and Determinism are compatible.

Firstly, Determinism, to my understanding, doesn't state that is "Impossible for one to consciously choose". Because you then go to contradict yourself by saying "Because conscious choices, such as to rape ones own daughter..." Which Just gives an example of a conscious choice, therefore disproving yourself of your previous statement. So, I would prefer to say that Determinism says that the whole feeling of "Consciously choosing" and "freewill" are simply illusions of the human mind. This brings me to my argument... The feeling of freewill and conscious decisions are simply illusions of the mind, so is the idea of morality. However, this is not to say that the concept of morality and determinism are not compatible. It could be argued that Morality is an evolutionary concept, evolved to help humans to relate to each other and create "packs" and build communities, ( as we are pack animals). In today's society a person with no morals or sense of right and wrong is known as a Socio-path or Psychopath, and is generally cast out of society... where as the "do gooders" the the strong sense of morals etc.. are seen as the role models and the more powerful, more popular amongst society. Now how does all this fit in with determinism? well, I will put this into an analogy: You have a man named Richard, He has no sense of morality, and believes that everything he does is determined, he sits around all day doing nothing, he doesn't work, he doesn't eat, he kills anyone that makes him angry and will rape women as he pleases... he believes he has no moral responsibility and has no control what so ever over his actions. However you also have a man named simon, He believes he has free will, and that he is responsible for the outcome of his choices. He works hard to earn money for food and shelter. He makes friends and has relationships. say where Richard lived, everyone was like him....Richard would eventually die, from either lack of eating, or being killed, or some sort of health problem from not enough excercise etc.. Simon however would have a greater chance of survival as he would find it easier to "form a pack", procreate. He would be at less danger of being killed... or killing. Therefore they may both be equally determined, but the one who believes in morality, is the one more likely to survive...