BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can't be a theist and a scientist simultaneously

I would first like to that anyone that has accepted this topic. The first round will be acceptance and definitions only. Pro is arguing that scientists cannot be theists. Con is arguing that scientists can be theists. The following rounds will have their main contentions, rebuttals, and final arguments. I will be expecting reliable resources for both sides. Definitions: Theist- 1) The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism). 2) belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). http://www.dictionary.com... Scientist- A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Simultaneously- Existing, occurring, or operating at the same time; concurrent: http://www.dictionary.com... Feel free to add definitions if you think they are necessary
Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

I disagree, I feel parent-elective circumcision is ethically acceptable. For one the foreskin may be hazardous to the newborn's health in his adultlife. Doctor's may recommend circumcision if the amount of foreskin is excessive to the point where the child is at a high risk of developing Urinary tract infections. In this case, it is the early consent of the parents in favor of circumcision can be protective for the newborn in his growing years. Secondly, the recovery time is fastest at the infant stage. For an infant, the recovery time is 7 to 10 days compared to an adult who requires 4-6 weeks. However, circumcision at the infantile stage necessitates parental consent.
Guantanamo Bay pro argues for it con against it

"By placing detainees on US soil the United States would be transferring the detainee to the civilian United States judicial system ever since the United States has been participating the the United Nations. This is a problem as civilian courts are not equipped to handle international terrorists. " Before we can accept your claim you must bring proof that a civilian court is not equipped to handle an alleged international terrorist. As of now this is merely a baseless claim and as posting a source or a new argument in the last round would be abuse, we may simply discard this argument entirely. "Furthermore, when an international terrorist is captured much of the time they have valuable intelligence Guantanamo Bay is the best equipped to interrogate these terrorists and extract information needed to save lives. In the United States, it would be much harder to interrogate the detainees and extract this information. " By being much harder to interrogate you mean much harder to torture right? Using Guantanamo as a loophole to torture alleged terrorists is hardly a viable option. Everyone has human rights, including terrorists. Also, you have not brought forth empirical evidence as to whether or not more information can successfully be extracted in Guantanamo that could not have been extracted in the U. S. Again, you should have done that last round as if you do it in the last it would be abuse.
Guantanamo Bay pro argues for it con against it

By placing detainees on US soil the United States would be transferring the detainee to the civilian United States judicial system ever since the United States has been participating the the United Nations. This is a problem as civilian courts are not equipped to handle international terrorists. Many of these terrorists were captured on the battlefield which means they could not be tried in the civilian court system. Furthermore, when an international terrorist is captured much of the time they have valuable intelligence Guantanamo Bay is the best equipped to interrogate these terrorists and extract information needed to save lives. In the United States, it would be much harder to interrogate the detainees and extract this information. (Porges) Sources Cucullu, Gordon. The American. Web. 19 Dec. 2010. "Document: Up to 25% of Freed Gitmo Detainees Return to Terrorism - CNN." Featured Gertz, Bill. "Report: Gitmo Transfers Return to Terrorism - Washington Times." Washington Times 7 Dec. 2010. Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News. Web. 19 Dec. 2010. Porges, Marisa L. "Porges: Time to Re-think Guantï¿½namo's Future in Detaining Terrorists." 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. "September 11 by Numbers." New York Magazine. Web. 19 Dec. 2010. Thiessen, Marc A. "Jane Mayer's Disaster." The American 14 Apr. 2010. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.
It is ashame that we, as a society, demonize child molesters far worse than adult rapists.

Molestation is the nonviolent form of playing with a child's private parts. Adult rape is the brutal overpowering of another adult individual to use their body as you please against their will in a sexual manner of some kind. This debate is under the assumption that we do demonize child molesters worse. This debate is not about whether or not that is true but about the issue of the view on sex offenders that society upholds.
It is ashame that we, as a society, demonize child molesters far worse than adult rapists.

I'd like to apologize in advance if I forfeit the last round, because I'll be gone from June 5th to June 15th at the Wentworth military academy SLC. Contention 1: Children will be scared more as they're younger. My opponent says adults will remember more, but this is highly false. There is a child molestation recovery project out there that's soul intention is to help children recovery from this as children grow up in shells. ( http://www.experienceproject.com...) The project is known as the expirence project and can be found at expirenceproject.com We also have a few members on this site (who are to remain nameless in this debate for safety reasons) that have been molested as kids and have shown their troubles growing up as a child and now even an adult with this expirence. The memories are real. Contention 2: Children are more important. Families are always very protective of their children. Why you may ask? The reason being is that children just can't defend themselves against these prediters while adults are more likely to know some form of self defense while the child doesn't know anything, but maybe to scream for help. ( http://ezinearticles.com...) When children don't seek help it is very likely to happen again. ( http://kidshealth.org...) Contention 3: PDST My opponent argues that only adults get this disorder, but he is incorrect. That is incorrect as a governmental website gives the fallowing side effects of child abuse. PTSD and anxiety. Depression and thoughts of suicide. Sexual anxiety and disorders, including having too many or unsafe sexual partners. Difficulty setting safe limits with others (e.g., saying no to people) and relationship problems. Poor body image and low self-esteem. Unhealthy behaviors, such as alcohol, drugs, self-harm, or eating problems. These behaviors are often used to try to hide painful emotions related to the abuse ( http://www.ptsd.va.gov...)
Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased

You have still not acnowleged the fact that someone pointing out the pattern for you doesn't mean that you understand the concept, they STILL HAVE TO LEARN THE CONCEPT. It is like saying that someone who knows the mechanics of a gun inside and out is a better shot than me simply because they know how the gun works. This isnt true, you dont have to know the patterns, you only have to know the concepts, so even if you do point out all the patterns to a wealthy student that doesn't mean that he understands the concepts, but if you teach him the concepts, he can do the problem no matter where it comes up, pattern or not. I believe that by taking ENOUGH tests, (not by stoping after ten or fifteen tests), but by taking enough practice tests that they know the processes to solve the problems, a poor person can learn concepts just as well as any rich person who knows where the concepts show up.
Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased

You said: "the tests are not biased, the wealthy are often simply more prepared." I don't agree with your definition of bias here. If I said that the tests were inherently biased, I think you'd have a good point. But bias simply means a predisposition toward favoring one group or another, for whatever reason. Here, the reason is that the rich can prepare for the test more easily, and therefore on the whole have an advantage over students with less money. You said: "someone who cannot afford a tutor could simply go to the library and practice online tests, would be well prepared" Just because standardized tests repeat the same concepts and patterns doesn't mean they're obvious or easy to grasp simply by practicing. If a student takes, let's say, 10 practice tests, I don't think we can assume that just by doing that practice the student will have learned the patterns of the test, and be as familiar with them as someone who's gone over each of the patterns with a private tutor. But the crux of my argument is still that the rich are much more easily able to prepare well for standardized tests, and will therefore on the whole score higher than those who do not have access to money - that is a bias. It's not an inherent or malicious bias, but it's a bias nonetheless. Finally, I'm not proposing a solution to the problem (certainly not one that makes the test harder for certain individuals,) or trying to assign blame - the debate is simply about whether or not the problem exists.
Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased

I agree with what you have said, mostly, but what you stated is that "Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically BIASED" I emphasize the word bias, in that, they do not make the test for the rich, but that the rich make themselves more apt to do good on the test, therefore, the tests are not biased, the wealthy are often simply more prepared. You state that they test the same concepts with each test, if that is true, someone who cannot afford a tutor could simply go to the library and practice online tests, would be well prepared, because as you stated, "They test the same concepts, and most of the time they test them in the same exact ways from test to test", this could arguably be easier than learning the all the concepts tested, then learning the concepts, because you would simply prepare yourself for those concepts, without knowing what they were, but you don't have to know the name to know how it works. Also, you seem to try to pin the blame on the test, they cannot simply make the test easier for the poor, and harder for the rich, because then it would not be objective at all, I still don't believe that the tests are biased, but rather that the wealthy more often have the ability to compare than the poor have the motivation to prepare, which could be perceived as a bias by the test.
Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased

I agree on your point about testing aptitude - some tests come closer than others, but I don't think standardized tests make much of an effort to test aptitute at all. But that was more of a side note. You said: "To say that you must be wealthy to be good at, and prepared for these tests is foolish" That is foolish, which is why it's not what I said. I said that that the wealthy are more likely to achieve a higher score. The difference is the ease with which the wealthy can prepare - I don't think being rich makes you better test-taker by default, but it certainly gives you an advantage in preparation. Standardized tests, because of their nature, repeat the same patterns over and over again. They test the same concepts, and most of the time they test them in the same exact ways from test to test. Because of that, with enough practice, a student can become completely familiar with the concepts tested, the way those concepts are tested, and the best way to attack those problems. A rich student can find all of this information neatly laid out by a private tutor, and practice to his or her heart's content with the help of that tutor until he or she is fully familiar with the test. A poor student, on the other hand, will find it difficult to practice the same amount or get the same level of advice, because of his or her economic status. Certainly if we compare Student A (who is rich) and Student B (who is poor,) Student B happens to be extremely determined whereas Student A is very lazy, B may very well out-score A on the SAT, but if we compare the groups of students as a whole, because of the ease with which affluent students can prepare for standardized tests, there is a socioeconomic bias built in. I suppose I need to underscore my argument with an assumption about tests like the SAT: they presume to objectively compare students' abilities. Since rich and poor students start off on unequal footing when preparing, that presumption of an objective comparison is incorrect.
Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased

First off, I would like to say that if any test at all was based on innate abilities, we would take them when we were born, and no later. I also believe that these tests are aptitude tests, which test your ability to learn, and your determination to learn. To say that you must be wealthy to be good at, and prepared for these tests is foolish, although the wealthy may be able to do it with greater ease, it is possible for anyone with the determination to do good to succeed on these tests. It is true that the wealthy can hire someone to show them how to take the test, but it is also true, that with effort, even the poorest person can find a library, and find countless books on test taking skills, SAT & ACT practice books, etc, and more likely than not, can take practice tests online, at that library, so it may be easier for the wealthy, that does not show that the tests are biased towards them, but rather, that they have the ability to prepare themselves for the test with more ease than someone else, after all, once you are sitting down, taking the test, it is all you, and no matter how much money you have, you have to do it alone.
Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased

The first point I'd like to make in this argument is that in the world of standardized tests, such as the SAT, ACT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and MCAT, there is no such thing as an "aptitude test." Each test is designed to focus on a specific skill set that can, to some extent, be learned. None of these tests are designed in such a way that they reflect innate ability. That being said, standardized tests are biased towards wealthy students. Since these students are wealthy, they can afford professional help in studying for these tests, and will therefore score higher than students who cannot afford, for example, a course designed to increase scores.
The American Civil War Was Not The Only Civil War Fought By America

"The American Revolutionary war was to gain independence from Great Britain, and began in 1776. The civil war was between the Northern and Southern states, and began in 1861. Both where conflicts over fear of the government freeing slaves, fear of central government, control of the Western frontier." We can pretty much extrapolate from the presented factual statement above that the revolutionary war you were talking about was really a battle between America and Great Britain. America and Great Britain are two different states. So therefore, what happened between those two nations was actually not a civil war. In addition to that, you've mentioned that "a civil war is a war between opposing groups within a country." Obviously, Britain and America are two different state or country, having a definite territory. So again, therefore, the American revolutionary war was not a civil war and that, America fought only one civil war which is the American civil war that began in 1861. "To sum it up, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the other way around cannot definitely be applicable." By proposing that statement, I did not show any conformity or agreement than you actually think I was. I said that revolutionary war CAN be a civil war. Obviously, by the use of the modal auxiliary "can", the tone of the statement appeared to be more like a presumption or supposition. It was not a factual statement. The meaning goes similar if I would have tried to change it with the word "may". Also, the word "can" in my argument was used to avoid stereotyping. Meaning to say, I don"t want to generalize something that is not true to all. Going back, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the latter can"t be a revolutionary war. It DOES NOT really mean that if a revolutionary war CAN be a civil war, then all revolutionary wars ARE civil war as well. We should avoid hasty generalization. "Also the fighting in Kansas can also be considered a Civil War. At Bleeding Kansas, pro slavery and anti-slavery groups clashed. About 60-180 men died in the fighting. Doesn't this meet the definition of a Civil War? This was fought by Americans with two different groups before the civil war." Before anything else, I just would like you to be informed that the American civil war was fought from 1861 to 1865. The fighting that had happened in Kansas was merely part of the civil war. During the civil war, different states had their own fights. So what I"m trying to say here is that the American civil war was comprised of different states, having a fight of their own. Also, many things had happened during the civil war. Like what you've said, at bleeding Kansas, pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups clashed. Still, what happened to Kansas was only one of the highlights of the American civil war. As it implied, there is only one civil war that America had fought ever since and revolutionary war was not counted as part of it. Thank you! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.funtrivia.com... http://mrsedwardsushistory.pbworks.com...)%20The%20American%20Revolution%20and%20the%20American%20Civil%20War
The American Civil War Was Not The Only Civil War Fought By America

"Certainly, the american civil war was the only civil war fought by America. You've pointed in your argument that the Revolutionary war can be considered as a civil war. That is a fallacy. When you say civil war, it is referring to the war between the citizen of a particular state. Meaning to say, the citizens of a certain country are fighting against each other because of the existing different ideologies that are pretty much inculcated in their minds. And because of that, basically, civil war results to a splitting of a nation into two (e.g. North and South America, North and South Korea, and the like). On the other hand, when you say revolutionary war, it is a war that basically aims to dethrone the ruler of a particular country. Furthermore, the citizens of the state where revolutionary war has flared up are trying to form a connivance against the ruler of that country. And also, in revolutionary war, there is no splitting of the country to form different nation." Well the Revolutionary War was fought by two different groups. This was the Loyalists and the Patriots, they fought over whether the colonies should leave Britain, also as I said earlier the definition of a civil war is a war between opposing groups within a country. The two groups were the Loyalists and Patriots. They also were both American. This meets the definition of a civil war. "To sum it up, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the other way around cannot definitely be applicable." Also Con seems to agree that a "revolutionary war can be a civil war" I belive that Con just agreed with me. Also the fighting in Kansas can also be considered a Civil War. At Bleeding Kansas, pro slavery and anti slavery groups clashed.About 60-180 men died in the fighting. Doesn't this meet the definition of a Civil War? This was fought by Americans with two different groups before the civil war.
The American Civil War Was Not The Only Civil War Fought By America

"A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state." Certainly, the american civil war was the only civil war fought by America. You've pointed in your argument that the Revolutionary war can be considered as a civil war. That is a fallacy. When you say civil war, it is referring to the war between the citizen of a particular state. Meaning to say, the citizens of a certain country are fighting against each other because of the existing different ideologies that are pretty much inculcated in their minds. And because of that, basically, civil war results to a splitting of a nation into two (e.g. North and South America, North and South Korea, and the like). On the other hand, when you say revolutionary war, it is a war that basically aims to dethrone the ruler of a particular country. Furthermore, the citizens of the state where revolutionary war has flared up are trying to form a connivance against the ruler of that country. And also, in revolutionary war, there is no splitting of the country to form different nation. "The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war." To sum it up, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the other way around cannot definitely be applicable. Sources: http://wiki.answers.com... http://answers.yahoo.com... http://www.reddit.com... http://www.differencebetween.com...
The American Civil War Was Not The Only Civil War Fought By America

Thanks for excepting this debate. The American Civil War was the only major Civil War fought by America, but the Revolutionary War can also be considered one. Loyalists remained loyal to the king and many fought the patriots during the war in brutal and savage fighting. The definition of civil war is war within country: a war between opposing groups within a country. Doesn't Loyalists and Patriots fit this definition? They were two groups from the same country who ended up fighting for different sides. Also the fighting in Kansas can also be considered a Civil War. At Bleeding Kansas, pro slavery and anti slavery groups clashed.About 30 from each side were killed and events such as the Pottawatomie Massacre. Doesn't this also fit the definition? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_Revolution) http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_Revolution) http://www.toriesfightingfortheking.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The American Civil War Was Not The Only Civil War Fought By America

To begin with, I'm not from America and I have not reviewed my world history but as far as I could remember, the american civil war was the only civil war fought by the America. Unless you have any other sources that could tell us that there was other civil war fought by America, then I think I'm gonna concede. But for now, since you haven't presented proof, I'm still going to argue. And my argument is, there was no other civil war fought by America. And by the way, even if you have presented your proof containing the 'other' civil war to which the America fought, it will still going to be scrutinized according to its credibility. Thank you.