BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative action

I would like to open this round with a quote from the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that"s pretty important." Back in the 60"s when he made this statement a black person could be jailed for being accused of a crime without due process and even executed if the crime they were being accused of was bad enough. So laws had to be made to halt these atrocities. Sporadic efforts to remedy the results of hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and denial of opportunity have been made since the end of the Civil War. We need a constant all out effort to remedy the lingering effects of racial discrimination. In response to your claim that Affirmative Action causes reverse discrimination I say we need to reverse it and bring it all the way back to zero. On the charge that it chooses people by race not taking into account their merit, achievements, competency. In 1947, Brooklyn Dodgers president Branch Rickey, decided to take some affirmative action on his own and approached Jack Roosevelt Robinson about joining the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Major Leagues had not had an African-American player since 1889, when baseball became segregated. When Jackie first donned a Brooklyn Dodger uniform, he pioneered the integration of professional athletics in America. By breaking the color barrier in baseball, the nation's preeminent sport, he courageously challenged the deeply rooted custom of racial segregation in both the North and the South. Jackie Robinson went on to be rookie of the year, he also was selected most valuable player one year and won a batting title and is in the baseball hall of fame. He was given the opportunity because he was black but but also because he was well qualified for the position. So if someone is guilty of denying people opportunities because of race, creed, color, or national origin, there needs to be laws in place to make them do that. Affirmative action simply means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and to create new opportunities that were previously denied minorities and women. Sources: http://www.civilrights.org... http://www.jackierobinson.com...
Affirmative action

President Kennedy was the first to use the term "affirmative action" in an Executive Order that directed government contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." This says nothing of special favor but just seeks equality. J.F.K. was the first to use the term but the idea of affirmative action was foreshadowed as early as the Reconstruction Era, which followed the U.S. Civil War. When that conflict ended, the former slave population throughout the South owned virtually nothing and had only a limited set of skills with which they could make a living. To help these newly emancipated citizens sustain a minimal economic base, the victorious General William T. Sherman proposed to divide up the land and goods from the sizable plantations of southeastern Georgia that were under his command and grant to each family of color "40 acres and a mule." The proposal ran into powerful political opposition, however, and it was never widely adopted. Fast forward to the Civic Rights Movement of the 1960"s and the condition of race relations and the need for a drastic improvement. Nothing was implemented during the Reconstruction Era and look what happened, racism and inequality flourished. Maybe the pendulum has swung a little bit in the other direction at this point but we need to stay the course until this issue is completely resolved and eradicated then let"s kick it again to make sure it stays down. Sources: Claude Oubre, Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen"s Bureau and Black Land Ownership (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877 - See more at: http://www.blackpast.org...
Affirmative action

I am strongly against affirmative action for 3 reasons- firstly affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Secondly, it lowers the standard of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Thirdly, it chooses people by merit or race not taking into account their merit, achievements, competency etc. Pro- affirmative action side will argue that it serves as a compensation to the minorities and people who were oppressed and strives to bring in equality. To this I say that by giving people quotas and advantages to succeed it defeats the very purpose of its creation i.e to bring equality. Therefore, it should stop as soon as possible.
Single-sex schools should be more common.

In conclusion my opponent has again stated that single-sex schools lead to improved grades of the students. However, my opponent has failed to prove this. As I pointed out in round two my opponent needs to show that the data given supporting same-sex schooling is valid, when it has been criticized for not been accurate. (1) By not showing these studies are valid my opponent fails in their burden of proof. Additionally, all we got as proof from my opponent is a webpage which cites academic studies which have been shown to consist of flawed data. (1) Also, and this is important "why should we trust a webpage that is selling a same-sex schooling model, would they not have a bias? "(2)My opponent again has stated that same-sex schooling leads to disruption and lowered sexual relationships. However no proof has been provided for this. Additionally, as I have pointed out, there is nothing wrong with sexual relationships as it is beneficial to mental and physical health. I would also like to point out that my opponent has dropped the homosexuality discrimination argument, the sex benefits arguments as well as the societal norm argument. These arguments show that same-sex schooling is not beneficial as my opponent claims. With that I hand the debate over to the voters. (1) . https://www.sciencemag.org...(2) . http://www.crchealth.com...
Single-sex schools should be more common.

Overall, single-sex schooling has been proven to increase the state testing scores of students that attend these schools (refer to my rebuttal) and although social skills will not be developed in school I have previously stated that the students attending these single sex schools can develop these skills outside of school. The main points I had brought up in the first round were that the single sex schools reduced the distractions in schools, lowered sexual relationships to develop, and lowered the amount of disruptions in class. I have supported these points using both logical and tested evidence. I will now turn the debate over to my opponent to complete the final round of this debate and progress us to the voting period.
Single-sex schools should be more common.

My opponent states that single-sex schools should be more common as sexual relationships will be less likely to develop. My opponent has yet to define why this is a bad thing, as sex is a very natural process and beneficial in the total development of a person not only mentally but also physically. (1) In the same way, any social interaction with the same or opposite sex is healthy. (2) However, by isolating a person from a segment of society that they will one day be forced to work with is not beneficial. We have to ask the question how will a person cope with working with the opposite sex when they have not even been able to interact with them. My opponent states that students will be less distracted if surrounded by only males or females. However, how does this correlate to real life where only 1/3 of the day is spent in school. Surely then after school when the student is exposed to the opposite sex the distraction will be even greater as they have not been exposed to it and so its not natural. Additionally, my opponent has said same-sex schools will improve efficiency, productivity and grades but has supplied no evidence for this in his opening argument. I note this has been done in the second round, but to stick to the rules I will not engage that now. In contrast in my opening argument I have provided evidence that improved grades are not observed in same-sex schools. In fact the authors of this study say that the data that suggests same sex schools provide better grades is all flawed. (3) My opponent needs to prove why this data is not flawed to make this argument work to their benefit. One last comment, my opponent has also mentioned homosexuality been a minority in the world. I do not agree with this statement, as sexuality can be best explained by a spectrum and so to say homosexuality is a minority ignores the fact that straight is also a minority. (4) Regardless, if we take homosexuality to be a minority this means that homosexual students will be negatively influenced according to my opponents arguments. A such we can argue that same-sex schools benefits as pointed out by my opponent are in fact discriminatory towards homosexuals and are thus should not be more common. I hand the debate back to my opponent for their closing statements. (1) . http://www.webmd.com...(2) . http://www.nhs.uk...(3) . https://www.sciencemag.org...(4) . http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...
Single-sex schools should be more common.

I must say I am impressed by your argument, however the statement,"One of the most important skills a person can acquire is social interaction skills" is borderline off-topic. This is because we are talking purely about education standards and test score improvement, and although your statement relates back to school into the fact that social skills are mainly developed in schools and that both male and female students are needed for these skills to develop which, in fact, does relate back to school. However, relating back to the topic of single sex schools increasing test scores and improving grades an Australian study of 270,000 students found that students of both sexes performed significantly higher on standardized tests (1). Also, social interaction skills can be built outside of school and therefore cannot be used as a valid point because of the ability for the students to interact as much as they want in the hours outside of schools. Also, the detrimental effects of single-sex schooling (Sexism and stereotyping) are definitely outweighed by the benefits (increase in grades and standardized test scores) which is proven in an article on greatschools.org, where the statement appears,"students of the opposite sex can be a distraction."(2) This statement tells us that single sex schooling can remove the factor of distraction of the other sex, and using logic we can figure out that less distraction leads to more focus, and then focus leads to a higher rate of efficiency and productivity. I will now give my opponent the debate to state rebuttals. (1) http://www.crchealth.com... (2) http://www.greatschools.org...
Single-sex schools should be more common.

Let me now present my opening argument. Schooling or schools deals with the concept of education. Education can be defined according to Merriam Webster as either (a) the action or process of teaching someone especially in a school, college, or university. (b) the knowledge, skill, and understanding that you get from attending a school, college, or university. (1)One of the most important skills a person can acquire is social interaction skills. (2) These skills result in behavior that is beneficial not only for the individual but the group/society as a whole. Learning/acquiring this skill requires interaction with both both males and females, as such single sex schools are not beneficial to the learning of social interaction skills as in effect you are isolating the students from another sex. The one benefit flouted by same sex school proponents is that it leads to improved grades for the students. However, this benefit does not hold up to scrutiny as has been seen in a report in Science magazine which showed the benefits of same-sex schooling are overblown and in fact do not lead to higher grades. (3) This argument above encompass all the major arguments made for same-sex schooling. (4) For these reasons, I believe that same-sex schooling is a detriment to students and should not be more common. I hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com......(2) . http://psychology.wikia.com...... (3) . https://www.sciencemag.org...(4) . http://www.greatschools.org...
Single-sex schools should be more common.

Debate Information: Round 1: Arguments stated Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Closing (No new information) Rules: 1. No new information in Round 3. 2. Follow structure. 3. No attacks (ex. You A**HOLE). (Any infraction involving these rules will result in all 7-points being given to me) Notes: I am NOT stating that ALL SCHOOLS should be converted into single sex schools. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe single-sex schools should be more common, this is because in single-sex schools sexual relationships will be less likely to develop, there will be less distractions, and there will be less reasoning for impressing friends and other students, thus creating an environment less distracting for the students improving productivity, efficiency, and focus. To explain my first point, it will be less likely for sexual relationships to develop, this point's meaning is that serious relationships will be less-likely to develop until college lessening the amount of distractions and drama in a student's life. It also helps to prevent students from having children, and overall sexual intercourse, at young ages because of the homosexual minority in the world. To support my second point, there will less distractions, I will state that students will be less likely to be seduced or distracted by other students' clothing and actions that are of a different sex. To support my third point, there will be less reasoning for impressing friends, thus helping to eliminate class clowns, troublemakers, and disruptions overall. This is because most immature or inappropriate behavior can be rooted to impressing students of the other sex.
I challenge you to a rap/poetry battle!

A mysterious purple mist looms heavily over the horizon, And threatens to fall over the silent green trees, standing true and strong. The flittering sunlight casts deathly black shadows over my vision, As the blindingly white breeze continues lazily along. The flowers tremble under the weight of the falling amber sunlight, Around it encloses the navy air of night, long awaited. The red bird leaves it's post from the tree's height. And finally comes golden silence, though much belated.
Anime Inspires

My opponent has tried to argue that anime inspires everyone eve·ry·one G2;evrēG6;wən/ pronoun every person. he is implying that every single person alive is inspired by anime. I will argue against this.-Blind Deaf people do not comprehend what Anime is therefor they are not inspired by it. -People who do not have cable telivision or internet, therefor not being able to view or know about anime are not inspired by it-People who do not enjoy watching anime are not inspired by it.I have disproved pros argument, and look forward to his rebuttals
Anime Inspires

My opponent fails to understand the topic he is arguing for. His resolution states that "EVERYONE IS INSPIRED BY ANIME" not "Every one has the potential to be inspired" Of course there's a potential for everyone to be inspired but the debate is irelevant to that. You argued that everyone is. not every could be. Therefor all my original points still stand. Furthermore, there are 7billion people. it is impossible for everyone to have seen anime otherwise it would be the biggest television networking availabe. Furthermore i will be adding on to the list of people who are not inspired by anime-Children between the ages of 1-4 who are unable to understand inspiration. -Severely mentally retarded people.-Tribes in Papa New Guinea, Africa, South america who have no ties to modern civilization.Of course everyone has the potential to see anime, however my opponent has argued that everyone is inspired by it. Which is completely untrue.
Anime Inspires

1. There is always a possibility that an deaf person's friends/family could talk about anime to them. http://www.wikihow.com... this website explains several different ways to communicate with them. So not being able to tell them about anime isn't a problem. 2. "People who do not have cable television or internet, therefor not being able to view or know about anime are not inspired by it." There's a possibility to this side too. For example, you should be going to school. You'd have some friends or people around you who talks about anime. Time passes and you get to know them. You would surely get invited over to their house once in a while. You and your friend is bored. You decide to surf the net, discover something called 'Anime' and start watching. You see, not having cable or internet at home isn't/shouldn't be a problem. 3. "People who do not enjoy watching anime are not inspired by it." I never stated you have to watch anime. But there's also a possibility to THIS as well. Even though you start off as a person who does not enjoy watching anime, you could still be well inspired by it. You never know the future, who knows--you might discover a friend or family watching it one day and just go along with it. You get to understand the things in life slowly as you go. The choices you make aren't always permanent. I await your reply.
Objective Morality

My opponent insists that the logic used to express scientific laws and ideas can be applied to an abstract concept such as morality. The manner in which scientists are in disagreement about science, is in no way similar to the way me and my opponent are in disagreement about morality. Scientists can all agree that at the end of the day, there is a right answer to a scientific problem, regardless as to whether or not either side of the argument has actually found it. I am arguing that there is no true right answer in the question of morality, except that it is variable, while my opponent argues the opposite. "Again, there are objective scientific laws that operate differently depending on external conditions, so why not moral laws?" This idea would make those scientific laws NOT objective. The field of science is unique in that it always pursues objectivity, while maintaining that it is an unattainable goal. Now, being objective in the manner in which you come to scientific conclusions could be applied to morality, but this still doesn't make morality itself objective. My opponent needs to be more clear about the rape scenario. He is trying to tell me how I would feel in a situation where someone close to me was raped, because society had come to the consensus that it was morally good. I guess it would depend on what side of the consensus I was on. Since I believe morality is subjective, I would need to be convinced of how rape could be morally good. Only if society came to an objective consensus that rape was morally good (assuming I'm not actually a part of it, just observing with my mind), would I be troubled. "If morality is nothing more than consensual opinion, then on what basis does one make moral obligations?" The answer: On the basis of consensual opinion, which is what we have been doing all along. My opponent is blurring my argument when saying that I believe in majority rule. Believing in subjective morality only asserts that the majority WILL inevitably rule, but can be changed. Again, that's the beauty of a non-static moral system. Of course I would assert my idea of morality and justice, this doesn't make them objective. Only if I assert them as absolutes, would they be. Because I accept the fact that my idea o these concepts can be changed at any time. I don't see how the last paragraph proves that I unknowingly believe in objective morality. I suggest my opponent takes my idea of morality rule that I attempted to clear up in the paragraph before this one.
Objective Morality

I mentioned physics precisely because it "exists, whether or not we as humans experience it." That's my point. Even though it exists in an objective way, physicists still are in disagreement. Therefore, just because people are in disagreement in ethics does not mean morality is subjective. It is equally plausible that morality "exists, whether or not we as humans experience it." Therefore, my opponent's earlier premises fail to reach his intended conclusion.My opponent says morality cannot be objective because context is involved. Again, there are objective scientific laws that operate differently depending on external conditions, so why not moral laws? This does not support his case any more than the previous argument.My opponent has stated that, if society was in consensus that rape was morally good, then it would in fact be morally good. Are we to believe that under such a hypothetical scenario, if his mother, or sister, or lover were raped, he would not be indignant? I hardly think so. He would have two choices: Abandon his ethical philosophy and admit that rape is always wrong. Assert his opinion and demand that his moral opinion be heard. There are many ways in which option 2 can play out, but ultimately, as soon as he demands to be heard, he is appealing to an objective moral standard: that minorities always have a right to be heard. Again we see that relative morality is simply irrational. It cannot be lived.My opponent doesn't make any mention of my argument about the fallacy of equivocation he is making between moral assessment and moral obligation. If morality is nothing more than consensual opinion, then on what basis does one make moral obligations? Even if 99% of the world agrees that rape is wrong, why should one not rape? If he says, "because majority opinion rules," then he is appealing to objective morality: that one must never contradict majority rule. If he says, "because we will punish you," then that is an appeal to might-makes-right, in which case the would-be perpetrator can build an army of like-minded people and overthrow the majority in order to make rape okay.My opponent can say morality is relative until the sun comes down, but I would bet even money that he will never actually live that way. There will be many occasion in which injustice comes knocking, and he will cry foul. When he does, it won't be some mere academic opinion. He won't just say, "You violated majority consensus." No, he will demand justice as though justice is absolute.