BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

I firmly believe that affirmative action is a great way to move everyone in a country forward as a whole. I believe that affirmative action helps make the workplace, and schools more diverse. And I also believe that a lot of people in minority groups, often don"t start off with the same opportunities as people in majority groups. First of all having quotas, and helping racial minorities get into more workplaces, and schools will make a better more diverse environment for everyone. In younger life, and schooling, it SO important for children to see, and become normalized to other minority groups. For young children, school is where they"ll make their first friends, learn all about their country as a whole, and their country shouldn't be all white. If a child has only seen a couple of black people in their life, it"s not a giant leap to think that they might be a little racist when they grow up. Diversity in the workplace is also great. More diversity means more opinions, more views on issues, and more knowledge. Especially if that workplace will make choices affecting these minority groups. People in minority groups don"t have the same opportunities as those in majority groups. Blacks don"t just "not work as hard as the rest of us" there has to be some reason that the amount stats for them in good schools are so low. Minority groups can often end up in the poverty cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org...... from discrimination that goes years back. And companies and people can be racists, some without even realizing it. Lastly, you said that "Race should NEVER matter" while I can see what you"re saying here, the fact of matter is that is DOES. Our culture and upbringing affect us and that fact that 35% of jail inmates are black, https://en.wikipedia.org...... and that 51% of inmates in New Zealand are Maori, http://www.newshub.co.nz...... are not numbers you can ignore. I'm from New Zealand by the way, that's why I brought that up, Maori only make up 14% of the population. And thank you I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Affirmative Action

I do not think affirmative action is a good policy. It can interfere with more qualified students' education. Though I will admit it helps minorities secure a place in our world, it is unfair to everyone who is qualified. Now, when I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE, including qualified people that are in minority groups. Affirmative action hurts the reputation of minorities. It causes people to believe the stereotype that all minorities need help. It also makes people believe that all the people that are also in minority groups are unqualified, and were only chosen because of affirmative action. Affirmative action also does not truly help all disadvantaged people. While minorities can be disadvantaged, and many people in minorities are, affirmative action would make more sense if it assisted people in economic distress, or were raised in neighborhoods with bad school history. Finally, though some might say affirmative action repays our debt to minorities for our treatment again, the minorities in question were mainly discriminated against a long time ago. The people affirmative action helps did not have to go through discrimination on the same scale as their ancestors. While there is no easy answer to stop discrimination, affirmative action is NOT the best one. Instead of affirmative action, I propose keeping race off of applications altogether. Race should NEVER matter. What should matter are your qualities and attributes. Thank you, and I am looking forward to our debate.
evolution is false

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited the final round, due to some circumstances. However, this is still at his loss and my gain. Why PRO should win The Proposition has refuted the main arguments of the Opposition. The Proposition has given many more sources that are reliable. The Proposition has listed examples of "transitional fossils" that show evolution through the years. The Proposition has proved microevolution, which the Opposition agrees with, and has showed examples of macroevolution and speciation. The Opposition has failed to refute the Proposition's arguments or restate arguments. The Proposition has had superior spelling and grammar. Conduct wise, it should be a tie.
evolution is false

evolution makes absolutely no since for multiple reasons and i would like someone who feels otherwise to make their point and we can see where we get. first off: each species of animal has a different amount of chromosomes in its cells which is why one species cant impregnate another, they just dont have the same mount of chromosomes. so when a creature evolves it would evolve a different amount of chromosomes because its a different species. well then how would a creature that evolved mate if it is the only creature of its kind? 2: why would birds evolve wings? before birds had wings how would growing wings in any way have benefited them? and while they were evolving these wings wouldnt that put them at a fairy large disadvantage? infact natural selection says that they would be more prone to die off rather than flourish. 3: the bible says nothing on the subject of evolution and in the first book utterly disproves it. 4: why did evolution stop when we started watching it? their is no sientific evidence that shows any evolution in any of our fossil records. 5:where is the missing link? there are no fossil records of evolution which is why their is no missing link or we would have found it previously. that is my standpoint
a first cause is impossible

"any cause is caused by another cause, so a first cause is impossible"On the surface, this logical conclusion makes sense as it's all we've ever known. Everything has a cause in the world we experience, but that's where we must make the distinction. The Law of Cause and Effect applies to what we can observe and perceive; however, it doesn't apply before creation of the actual observable world itself. One of favorite articles on metaphysics states, "Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there:I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it,perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon theground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think ofthe answer I had before given - that, for anything I knew, the watch might always have been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? When we come toinspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts areframed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to producemotion, and that motion is so regulated as to point out the hour of the day. Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch,exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more,and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean, that the contrivances of nature surpassthe contrivance of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism. " [1] . https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...
The chicken came before the egg

My opponent brought up a very compelling source from the website how stuff works. I read it and it does make sense. My rebuttal Now just because something makes sense does not mean its true. It made sense to believe that the earth was flat and that earth was the center of the universe all proven false by scientific research and we all hold these to be true after hundreds of years. My points 1. The website that you got this information from does not give any scientific data nor does it say anything about scientific research to come with this solution like scientist do when trying to solve a problem. What you and "how stuff works" are saying is just logic you are trying to bleed over into this question without any proof, no name of who did the research, the school involved, nothing just logic being bleeding over. Hundreds of years ago we thought we were the center of the universe because logically it made sense and that was the conventional wisdom of the times because it was logical, but proven false by Galileo. Galileo actually did research and experiments to prove this point not conventional wisdom of the times that made sense, the rest is history. I will provide scientific proof, from a top tier university, from an actual scientific doctor none of what my opponent provided. 2. The protein that is found to create a chicken egg is only found in a chicken , the chicken had to come first. Now unlike my opponent that only provided a link to the website howstuff works, I will provide a link to an article that will show you that the The University of Sheffield located in the UK is a school ranked 66th in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and had 5 Noble Prize winners (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) did research to provide scientific proof that the chicken came first, made by Dr. Colin Freeman http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.nbcnews.com... So here I provided actual scientific research, from a scientific doctor, from a school ranked in the top 100 in the world versus your website link from Howstuffworks that is just using conventional wisdom or I would like to call it convenient knowledge instead of actual research into the topic
The idea of war is stupid.

I know that there is terrorism, but I also think there are other ways to solve that problem. We have great offense [if I can put it that way], but what if we made better defense? I said "giving up" instead of "surrendering", it's not a big deal. If you know what I meant, then why did you go through the trouble to tell me so? When I said I knew what I was talking about, I meant I knew my side and I wanted people to see my point of view. Ok, I can agree with you on one thing. War is not a *complete* waste of time, but I just think that rather than going into war, we could try to compromise or find some other way through to help Iraq people as well. Sometimes it seems like it has to get worse before it gets better, but I don't think that at all. I think that if we could find a less violent way to solve our problems, we wouldn't have to put our people in mortal danger. I have to say though, war has gotten less violent...in a way. I mean, I remember studying about Vietnam and how some soldiers had to eat their own horses, the horrifying amputations, and the diseases being spread, etc. I should include that it *has* gotten better, but I think we can improve much more. I don't see what the difference is between a school fight and a blown out war. Except no one gets killed in a school fight and a huge toll comes out of a war. Yet people tell children that violence never solves anything...how come that doesn't apply to war?
The idea of war is stupid.

I'm not going to be judgemental or factual at all about this. This is all about opinion. =) I hate war. There are so many different ways of settling arguments rather than going into a huge war killing hundreds, thousands, millions of people for the stupidest reasons. You know how teachers go saying, Violance never solves anything...blah, blah, blah. Like it matters! We're in a war with Iraq and Bush is making it ten times worse. It's just gonna be another endless cycle. Then when one side finally gives up, what is the real victory? the sense of power in your hands? is that really worth the thousands of dead troops and the time wasted on a stupid war when we could be focusing on more serious problems? Like pollution, cancer, other diseases, school shootings, global warming, etc. world peace? I know the point of going into war is supposed to create world peace, but I think that we could be solving that problem in a less violent way. =) *please don't give me all this crap about being a bad debater, because I don't care. I'm not a good debater, but I know what I'm talking about and I know this war is just going to create even bigger problems. It's gonna leave us with less than we gain*
Is Apple Better Than Samsung

Apple is a company that actually cares and listens to there fans. Samsung doesn"t. All the hate about Bixxy, and all Samsung did was disable that feature!!! It took them 6 months and all they did was disable the feature! They didn"t even make it so you could use it for another feature. Of course they put the button in the easiest place to accedentally press it. Apple would never do that. Their phones are unique. Think about it, if Apple never made the IPhone, there would never be Samsung. Samsung copied off Apple with the touch keyboard. So don"t say Apple is horrible, because Apple basically made Samsung because without the IPhone or Newton, there would never be the Galaxy or Galaxy Tab.
Is Apple Better Than Samsung

You see, Samsung phones arent the only ones blowing up.( Source: https://www.express.co.uk...) Samsung also has multiple choices,You can get them with better cameras for example, that variety does not exist with iphones, Now even though multi-tasking exists with recent apple products, Android has had it easily done for a long time. AND I CAN USE MY CHARGER FROM AN OLDER SAMSUNG PHONE OR TABLET ON A NEWER VERSION! you dont need a new charger for every new samsung device. Its your move.
Is Apple Better Than Samsung

At least Apple phones don"t blow up in your face like Samsung Galaxy S7. And don"t even get me started on Bixxy. They are very cheap phones and sell them for 900 dollars. Oh, how and how about, they include a 3.5mm headphone jack ADAPTER. Apple came first and then Samsung came in out of nowhere and think they are the king. Oh, did I mention that Apple actually had their 10th year IPhone ANNIVERSARY. No duh they are selling an iPhone for $1000.
In a no holds barred death match, the time agreed upon by both heroes, Batman beats superman

I realise the title says otherwise, but I accept the change to Iron Man since, in my opinion, he is the only other hero who can stand a chance of being batman's equal on an intellectual level. If I understand your argument correctly your debate focusses on the fact that Batman has equipment specialised to certain situations, which means he wouldn't necessarily have the right tools to beat Iron Man? On that point we are at an agreement.. BUT you flawed your own debate with your own words... I quote: " It is not uncommon for him to lose a fight, retreat, regroup, prepare, and come back to win." THERE is the turning point in this battle, because he is both a master of stealth and disguise he can escape, because being a master strategist he would know when to retreat and he basically only needs an EMPE.. Also I'm sorry but I can't leave this out, not one of batman's Random encounters ended as badly as the destruction caused by the mandarin in Iron man 3... Something I think we should keep in mind is that although they are similar enough to be near identical across Comic-universes, Batman has several advantages, such as his secret Identity, his lack of arrogance and the fact that of all heroes, except possibly Dr. Fate, he is closer to evil then any other hero.
In a no holds barred death match, the time agreed upon by both heroes, Batman beats superman

How about your batman vs IRONMAN!!!!!!!! Batman is limited, especially in his basic form with basic equipment. He would lose most fights if they were random encounters. Heck, even in his own comics, he does lose in random encounters quite often. It is not uncommon for him to lose a fight, retreat, regroup, prepare, and come back to win. This can be seen in his fights against Bane, Bronze Tiger, and the Owls. When we look at Batman and Ironman, they are clearly counterparts. Are they equal in their basic equipment? No. But they are counterparts in their personalities. Billionaires, Playboys (well Bruce fakes this part), Philanthropists, Geniuses, Art Collectors, and both are mutant-phobic (Look at Civil War/Thor-buster/Hulk-buster and Brother MK I/OMACs) Random encounter, basic equipment, Ironman easily wins without pause.
In a no holds barred death match, the time agreed upon by both heroes, Batman beats superman

(also please excuse any breach in protocol, this being my first debate) In my opinion Batman would ultimately win said battle for the following reasons: 1. His only known weakness is the trauma he experienced at his parents death, which he overcame almost easily when Savage used Bane to implement it in Justice League: Doom. 2. Batman knows both superman's physical weakness as well as his emotional one. (If it wasn't clear I'm referring to Kryptonite and Lois Lane) 3. Batman has the superior intellect, not just the science and technology, I'm referring to his superior reflexes and strategic approach to battles, where as superman simply blunders into every situation trusting his powers to get him out of any trouble (admittedly most of the times they do, but it isn't the kind of stuff you pull when facing the Batman) 4. He has a near infinite amount of resources which he can use to either create armour against superman, or weapons to use against him.
In a no holds barred death match, the time agreed upon by both heroes, Batman beats superman

Alas, since my opponent forfeited the previous round, and my previous argument really shouldn't have been enough to end the debate I'm going to have to assume he has lost interest in the debate.. Nevertheless I shall try to continue this debate. Okey the only thing I am able to do is to further explain my confidence in Batman, so to quote on several aspects: 1. I'd like to emphasise Batman's sense of honour and ability to never stay down.. Specifically I am referring to return of the Dark Knight part one, where using the Batmobile, he incapacitates most of the Mutant army, but when he is confronting the mutant leader he exits the batmobile to face him head on.. Granted he got his but whooped, but after a retreat he again faced him and utterly destroyed him in front of the mutant army, which simultaneously created a huge following for him, calling themselves the sons of batman. 2. Another point I'd like to make is Batman's willingness to do whatever it takes to get his job done. It has been argued that Batman will never completely win a battle because of his unwillingness to kill... Yet in the Return of the Dark Knight Part 2 he finally kills the Joker when he realises the Joker has run too rampant for too long.. Another example is in the crossover movie apocalypse, while superman is sub-doing his cousin Cara Zurell who was at that time under the control of DarkSeid, Batman activated all the Hellspores on Apocalypse threatening to set them off unless Darkseid releases Cara and promises never to pursue her again.
The divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible.

The Divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the BibleHere are three Bible verses clearly stating that God is not a man. 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man' (Numbers 23:19).'for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee' (Hosea 11:9) 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man' (Romans 1:22-23)The word 'Messiah' does not mean God it means anointed (mashiach, Strong's Concordance 4890). The word 'Christ' does not mean God it means anointed (Christos, Strong's Concordance 5547). God's son' does not mean God. 'Adam, which was the son of God' (Luke 3:38")was not God. Can you dear reader provide three Bible verses defining Jesus as God? If you cannot then the Divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible. Terms and conditionsRounds one to five must all be used to counter my Biblical evidence and provide your own Biblical evidence to sufficiently assert that the divinity of Jesus is a correct doctrine according to the teachings of the Bible. Please do not waste round one by simply saying that you accept the challenge or write about what you will do within the debate. Each and every round must be used exclusively to counter my Biblical evidence and provide your own Biblical evidence to sufficiently assert that the divinity of Jesus is a correct doctrine according to the teachings of the Bible. I have given the maximum amount of rounds, maximum amount of time to argue and maximum word count. Please use each and every round to counter all of the Biblical evidence that I provide with your own Biblical evidence.
Barack Obama is/was a bad president.

As there are no visible parameters to this debate, and as there are many ways by which to judge Obama and his administration, I will begin by offering some framework to the ensuing discussion. I will argue that Obama is a "bad" president because his actions have had, on balance, more negative than positive impacts on the strength, security, and prosperity of America from our perspective and at this point in time. I will further explain why I have chosen this standard, then I will lay out my analysis of his actions as I am able. In general, it is always hard to judge a presidency if only because of the immense scope of a president's actions. It is not immediately clear where many of the policies Obama has pursued will ultimately lead, nor can we as the public be fully aware of the information available to the president as he decided to pursue them. In light of the complexity of our world, and of the difficulty of analyzing situations for which in many cases we are outside spectators, I have chosen to apply the standard that a president is judged as "bad" if the consequences of his actions are such that the negative outcomes outweigh the positive from our perspective and at this point in time. Three characteristics that taken together are a good representation of the condition of America are strength, security, and prosperity. Strength I define as our position within the world. It includes our military might but also our continued positive relations with allies and the restriction of foes. Security has to do with protection of America within its borders. Examples of this would include our justice system but also the maintenance of our basic rights as enumerated at the founding of the nation. Prosperity I define as the well-being of the American people materially as well as the freedom to choose within the confines of the law how to achieve that well-being. I contend that, on balance, from our perspective and at this time, Obama has pursued policies which have left us weaker, less secure, and less prosperous. The diminished condition of America on balance makes him a bad president.
This House would allow the consumption of dog meat

Its been forever since an argument has been posted because of the forfeit glitch. Because of this, I will try the best in my ability to argue why dog mat shouldn't be consumed. For this round, i will only state my conclusion because of my opponent not providing an argument in the last round. Conclusion:In conclusion. we must consider the fact that society can move on from eating dog meat. Society has grew, where we can help other societies by providing better meat, than dog. Dog meat is really not that healthy, and has more of a chance on transmitting a disease compared to ther meats. Secondly, the consumption of dog meat breaks the moral of "Man's Best Friend". Why should we let them suffer, instead of actually coming up with a solution?