BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New Tech High Schools

This is my first Debate and I decided to do it over something that I feel was and is a good change to our school. Possible this will reach other schools just as it did ours. Last year my class was put through a series of task and rules, that we have to follow. It's mission is to re-invent teaching and learning for the 21 St Century by offering a proved model and a fully integrated suite of tools designed to facilitate the creation and management of a relevant and engaging 21st Century education. It seems to me though that has taken its toll in twenty first century; and as you may have noticed schools have introduce a new way of learning for the students and it seem that they have had some sort of accomplishment. They learn to work in groups with a variety of people, they all have different strength and weakness. Meeting dead lines and meeting certain rules and requirements, in projects. So why is it that the parents of these students feel that they should work with people that they are sure will meet deadlines and those that accomplish what they must be completed. It use to be that the teacher would hand out an assignment and you would have look out of a book,but now instead of handing out daily assignments, teachers assign periodic projects with different components. Components may include a written essay and a digital project such as a website, PowerPoint presentation, or photo essay. Finally, students are asked to present their work orally to their classmates. Students work on these projects either individually, with a partner, or in a group. The due dates for these projects are sometimes deceptively far away, forcing students to develop time management skills. At first, procrastination is the name of the game, but students quickly learn that if they want to succeed, they need to spread the project out over a period of time. So why can't the parents see that they will graduate and be prepared to face really world issues and people that they don't know now? Is introducing this type of environment to soon for students or are they a little too delayed?
Ayn Rand's argument against the Native Americans and her concept of rights

Your pack of animals, namely humans, and the white man's pack had a war. You lost. I do not see the issue. If I fight an opponent and they cut off my hand and I scream in pain and beg them to stop they will not stop. They might even rape me anally, it is purely their decision to make, just like if I managed to tie you up and drug you, I could potentially do anything to you.Life is cruel, natural selection is paramount to make our species flourish as the dominant one on the planet. We must eliminate the primitive for the more advanced again and again until perfection is achieved, since perfection is impossible this will go until the world ends (or beyond it if we somehow escape to another inhabitable region of space).
Ayn Rand's argument against the Native Americans and her concept of rights

The Con has provided two 'substantial' arguments throughout the debate:1) The Europeans didn't have to invade the Americas and displace the Native Americans2) They could have done it in a far less brutal mannerI shall now address both her contentions before concluding my piece.1) The Europeans didn't have to invade the Americas but this does in no way prove, to even the slightest degree, that they shouldn't do it anyway (considering their nation went on to be a world superpower of the 21st Century it's quite justifiable in the modern sense).2) If they had done it in a far less brutal manner the primitive Natives would have for sure shot with bows and arrows and spears at the white men because they were, by nature, very aggressive as a culture, known to skin animals alive and what not.Now onto my conclusion...The Europeans had the gun, they had the resources to build a successful nation and the native Americans stood in their way. The native Americans were brutal to the white men (often scalping them) whereas the white men killed with merciful shots to head and heart to make quick deaths.I don't really have much more to say because all Ayn Rand's speech does is say that the native Americans should shut up and get over it and unfortunately this is true.Thanks for the debate.
Ayn Rand's argument against the Native Americans and her concept of rights

So it was neccesary to kill all those people to "advance?" There was civilization in Europe already, why would they need to civilize every country? Civilization wouldn't have died out in Europe just because there wasn't civilization in AmericaWhat's wrong with leaving them alone? The pilgrims could've went back to Europe if they wanted civilization.The White man basically wiped out millions of Native Americans for land and resources that were not rightfully theres, just to fulfill their idea of what they wanted a country that wasn't theirs, to be likeSociety wouldn't have suffered from a slowing of "advancement" just because one country is not what they call "civilized"And once again, if the American Indians were so inferior, they would've died out by themselvesHonestly if they wanted civilization they didn't have to force a completely different country of people who were minding their own business, living their own lives to conform into their idea of what they think is rightThat is extremely intrusive and atrociousAnd the fact that you seem to imply that the "Advancement" of civilization is more important than the rights of people is quite tragicPeople are not ipod bugs that you have to get rid of in order for the ipod to work....People are complex, beautiful creatures who all have a strong sense of emotions and each have individual things they believe in strongly.They have senses of dignity and deserve to be treated with respect The American Indians were not "problems" or "burdens" of society since they bothered absolutely nobody with their lifestyle. They only had a piece of land that was their homes that they wanted to hang on to. What bothered the Pilgrims, was that the Indians had land that the Pilgrims did not own and land that wasn't used for things that they envisionedSo they wrongly intruded on land that wasn't rightfully theirs, massacred people for profit, and oppressed them for hundreds of years for their own self-interests It's not right and it definitely does not justify "advancement" since "advancement" didn't have to occur at that specific land that wasn't rightfully theirs
Ayn Rand's argument against the Native Americans and her concept of rights

Are you using "Social Darwinism" as a basis for your argument?Social Darwinism was an excuse used in the 20th century to kill millions of people out of prejudice in order to "succeed with the advancement of human beings"These excuses have nothing to do with biological evolution which by the way, takes millions of years. Human are different from animals by the simple fact that we can rationalize and attempt to cooperate in an equal society whereas other animals do not. In fact, this kind of reasoning is unique to humanity and is what seperates humans from other animalsWhich is why people say you've lost your humanity when you no longer care about the welfare of other human beings.Social Darwinism has been used to justify Nazism, scientific racism, imperialism, and Fascism and all other ideologies that base their beliefs in prejudice, but justify it by "Social Darwinism"Social Darwinism has no real scientific grounds either to be legitimate, since biological evolution take millions of years.Social Darwinism is one of the most dangerous and misused ideas ever conceivedIf Social Darwinism had legitimacy, the "inferior species" would of died out on their own instead of been murdered in millions for the "advancement of the species". (Which btw is the opposite of 'natural.') Native Americans are still alive and well so I don't consider them to be "inferior species"Plus the fact that the idea of superiority is extremely relative, is also a downfall to the idea of Social DarwinismI don't know if you're trolling or serious because the fact that you have just about justified every genocide that has happened in history for the false idea of the advancement of human species is very bewildering to say the least Btw I'm not Native American, I am White.
Arguments for the Existence of God

Ezekiel 23:20 She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse. Thats a verse from the "holy" book you believe in. "God" wouldnt wanna talk about horse genitals and their size in his "holy" book. That makes everything written in it non reliable. That verse was only an example. I can find many other verses like this if you want me to. So stop quoting from a book which was written by a buch of drunk, "horse loving" guys. Now, about coming back to life after being dead... It is only possible thorugh medical interractions as we know e.g cpr. Yet i dont think thats what you meant about jesus.
Arguments for the Existence of God

To whom it may concern, there are "two dozen or so" theistic arguments for the Existence of God. I am challenging anyone to debate the soundness and validity of at least 5 of those arguments. 1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument 2. The Ontological Argument 3. The Argument from Consciousness 4. The Moral Argument 5. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ If Con can choose which one of these arguments he/she would like to challenge, then in round 2, I will state my Pro case for that argument, and let the games begin.
Bring back eugenics!!!!!!!

My opponent is an obvious example of what happens when people who are related have children. It's sad to see what his parents have done to him, that's why brothers and sisters shouldn't make babies! Eugenics will only prove to worsen this problem over time because it prevents diversity in the human genome, which in turn makes us all more closely related and then we end up with huge portions of the population who are short on chromosomes like my opponent.
Bring back eugenics!!!!!!!

In my opinion, eugenics is based solely on the concept of winnowing out certain sectors of society that "we" don't like, without any real thought given to the consequences of disallowing these "undesirables" to procreate. Who are these undesirables that I speak of? It depends solely on the conviction of the parties involved who are willing to administer this "culling" of society. Who's to say that anybody is somehow free of ever making on the list of supposed undesirables? It really boils down to getting rid of those people "we" don't like! The concept of "genetic cleansing" holds no real scientific value, yet eugenics itself is based on a scientific understanding of how we could conceivably control humankinds genetic makeup, but is that really a good thing? First off, the idea that we could somehow remove certain ailments from society (ie, cancer, arthritis, downsyndrom) is so problematic, it borders on the realm of impossible. If we removed everyone from society with a certain sickness that's caused by a genetic "misprint", it wouldn't necessarily remove that gene from the human genome all altogether because these kinds of "misprints" could reamerge in later generations, thus spawning the need to remove more factions of society and so on and so on, until we've removed the vast majority of society itself. Dwindling down our genetic diversity will leave us unable to adapt to ever changing circumstances and could make us genetically venerable to extinction. Who's to say that we are able to make a wise decision of what genes are good or not good for us? We would literally need to see into the future to have somewhat of an idea of what genes in our genome we will need to continue to adapt. Eugenics is a denial that genetic adaptation is a good thing, but if we don't contine to adapt, the human genome would become stagnant and we would become more related to each other, and we all know the dangers of making babies with people we're related to. Eugenics is like scientifically denying science!! In the end, all eugenics really is, is the science of getting rid of those we don't like, and since every sector of society is disliked by somebody, we all make that list of undesirables. Since we cannot see into the future, all we can do is rely on ALL the genes in the human genome to have better genetic adaptation, even the ones we might consider "undesirable".
How can you consider yourself Anarchist ? if your a christian

Well... As I am not creating any more arguments, judge based on merit, not based on the forfeit. My opponent had finals and that was detrimental to his case. But, as I am not doing anything but extending all of my previous arguments, you vote for who won. Incidentally, I still urge you to vote CON. In fact, I see voting CON as the only logical choice in this debate. Good luck to my opponent and thank you again for challenging me to this debate. Thanks, -EG
How can you consider yourself Anarchist ? if your a christian

sorry finals week right now kinda crazy! draxxt: This is the text in which I use it. I am a socio-Anarchist. I am a Christian, yes, which means I abide by predetermined morals (As I've always said are subjective) and therefore, have no government in use whatsoever. first if you are refering to the bible in which that is where you get your predetermined morals ? romans ch 13 paul talks about obeying and submiting to the goverment because God has asked of that . Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God's servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority. Civil government is a "minister of God for the good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil authorites have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that do evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that do good.
How can you consider yourself Anarchist ? if your a christian

This one is simple enough. But before I begin, I would like to thank my opponent for being so casual. "Bro" is something very few people call me... Merriam-Webster defines anarchy as: "absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government" This is the text in which I use it. I am a socio-Anarchist. I am a Christian, yes, which means I abide by predetermined morals (As I've always said are subjective) and therefore, have no government in use whatsoever. That should clear things up. Please, make your rebuttal swiftly, I have very little time on the computers lately. Thanks, -EG (By the by, this is not a resolution. To debate this under our current positions, we must say "Draxxt is not an Anarchist if he is a Christian" or "Draxxt is not a Christian if he is an Anarchist." Either resolution would be suitable.)
The Right is Better than the Left, Politics

The "nanny state" you describe provides aid to millions of people who desperately need it: students, seniors, the mentally and physically handicapped, veterans, etc. Sometimes, people find themselves trapped in unfortunate situations; in such cases, governmental aid is absolutely essential to a healthy, functional society. In fact, a lack of governmental regulation usually results in terrible consequences for society. For example, the Great Depression (1929-1939) occurred largely due to a lack of governmental regulation upon banks and businesses. The wealthy elite who led these entities followed their own self-interest (as most humans tend to do) and managed to escape largely unscathed while EVERYBODY ELSE suffered the consequences. While I agree that there must be a limit to governmental regulation and intervention, I argue that human nature demands that humans be regulated for their own sake. Indeed, government has increased in size in response to many of America's catastrophes (from Shays's Rebellion to the Great Depression) and has successfully solved these problems. The tendency of our government to grow larger when our country is faced with disaster is no coincidence: the government must be able to exercise its power in order for problems to be solved and progress to be made.The individualistic philosophy of "every man for himself" is not conducive to a healthy, progressive society; if everyone acted in their own self-interest, society would grind to a halt. We cannot remain stuck in the past. (Keep in mind that even under a "nanny state", citizens enjoy many basic rights and freedoms that citizens of many other countries do not. )
The Right is Better than the Left, Politics

I disagree, People are different and there are always exceptions however depending on the subject some groups seem to be better than others and in return worse at other things. e i, Black people and physical sports. https://en.wikipedia.org.... One of my favorite thing about being on the right is, Individual rights and responsibility over the collective. It promotes least government intervention while the left increases government size. http://classroom.synonym.com... http://www.informationisbeautiful.net... The worse thing about the Left is, Using the power of government to enforce their belief on others. They think they know whats better for you than you do. Less freedoms while living in a nanny state. https://www.healthcare.gov...
The Right is Better than the Left, Politics

Having "better looking" or more scientifically literate people than the other side does not make one side "better" than the other. (Moreover, being more scientifically literate than someone else doe not make one "smarter".) The political side that is superior to the other is that which emphasizes independent thought, cooperation with one's fellow citizens, and equality; these are the qualities that contribute to a healthy society. The right has consistently discouraged such ideals; for instance, Senator Joseph McCarthy (R- Wisconsin) infamously perpetrated the "Red Scare" in the 1950s (http://www.biography.com...). McCarthy alleged, without ANY verifiable evidence, that Communists had infiltrated the federal government and needed to be arrested. Despite his inability to substantiate any of his claims, McCarthy continued his campaign, playing on the fears of the public and undercutting civil rights at every opportunity. During the Red Scare, many American citizens were discouraged from trusting one another and encouraged to report any suspicious activity to the authorities. McCarthy cultivated an atmosphere of paranoia that would cost thousands of hard-working citizens their jobs and cause them to be unfairly persecuted in the public eye. Indeed, even those who were legally proven to be innocent were ruined, as the public still saw them in the light in which McCarthy had portrayed them. During the Red Scare, many American citizens were discouraged from trusting one another and encouraged to report any suspicious "Communist" activity to the authorities. Countless other examples exist of infamous right-wing ideologies and policies: Donald Trump's travel ban on Middle Eastern countries and proposed "border wall" between the United States and Mexico; Robert Bentley's (R- Alabama) signing of AB 174, which forbids Alabama cities from setting their own minimum wages; Rick Scott's (R- Florida) signing of SB 1722/HB 1411, which defunds Planned Parenthood and prevents the vast majority of doctors from performing abortions; and HB 3044, which proposes to isolate gay youth from organizations that support gay rights and from counselors. On the other hand, the political groups and ideologies with which we commonly associate the "left" tout fairness, independent thought, and social cohesion rather than injustice, a mob mentality, and divisiveness. As Barack Obama said, "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America- there's the United States of America."
should McCain run for president

I affirm: McCain run for president I'll refute my opponents case then move to present my own. "I THINK THAT OUR COUNTRY IS IN TO MUCH TERMOIL TO HAVE A GUY THAT IS HIS AGE" --> Out of the 2, McCain and Obama, McCain has the experience and right idea when it comes to this "turmoil." In a time when we are at war, and Islamic Extremism is threatening America, we need a president who is tough on terror and who will not return to Pre-9/11 security measures. Furthermore, his age should not be a factor. Ronald Reagan was his age and look how the great the country turned out with him as our President. "I THINK THAT WE NEED SOMEONE WITH FRESH IDEAS" --> No one has "fresh ideas." E.g. Obama marks the old democratic Party and socialist philosophy, that has been spreading through the world for decades now. Socialism is not a FRESH idea. Furthermore, jsut because something is new does not make it good, right or effective. Uh, well there is a character length or 1,000 words...
should McCain run for president

I THINK THAT McCAIN SHOULD NOT RUN FOR PRESDIENT..I THINK THAT OUR COUNTRY IS IN TO MUCH TERMOIL TO HAVE A GUY THAT IS HIS AGE.I THINK THAT WE NEED SOMEONE WITH FRESH IDEAS...WE DONT NEED A PRESIDENT THAT IF HE WOULD RUN FOR 2 TERMS HE WOULD BE ALMOST 80 YEARS OLD..I THINK THAT WITH THE WAY THAT AGE AFFECTS PEOPLE IN OUR DAYS AND TIME I THINK THAT HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FULLFILL THE NEEDS THAT THE COUNTRY NEED TO BE MET..I THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR McCAIN BECAUSE HE IS IN FACT OLD BUT AFTER ABOUT THE FIRST YEAR HE WILL GET TIRED..HE WILL ONLY BE LETTING HIS VICE AND SECATERY DO ALL THE WORK..AND WE DID NOT PICK THEM WE PICKED HIM..I THINK THAT IF WE PICK HIM WE WILL DO NOTHIN BUT PUT A OLDER VERSION OF BUSH IN OUR WHITE HOUSE AND WE DONT NEED THAT...
Psychiatry is a hoax and should be abolished

I stated that psychiatry itself is a not a hoax. My opponents resolution was "Is psychiatry (as practiced today) a hoax, and should it be abolished as a medical specialty?" Psychiatry today has underwent certain changes that not only change the way it should be ran, but also changed it completely. In my previous argument, I stated that psychiatry should not be abolished, but the way in which it is practised today should be abolished and reformed. I also stated that physciary should be abolished as a MEDICAL SPECIALITY. This not only supports my position but also summarize my perevious argument. The fact that my opponent failed to attack my case should be taken as a sign of forfiet and should be taken as my victory. Thank you.