BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Single-sex Schools Are Good For Education

[There's nothing to forgive. People make mistakes. I just wanted to let you know I am female. But thank you for having the courtesy to apologize.] I'd also like to point out that at first I had thought the 'no sources' rule would be a fun way to try debate, essentially debating over opinion. But a lot of our disagreements seem to be on facts themselves, and I find that to be disadvantageous to the debate. I hear what you're saying, but strongly disagree. You write, "What mostly happens in these situations is that a person would somehow manage to make that other person of opposite gender as his/her own inspiration to continue with his/her studies." But that's not the way it works. That only applies if the specific person in mind values education as an admirable goal. If not, they wouldn't care to study. Sexual attraction is very strong, to the point that people may change themselves or put on appearances in order to appeal to the opposite sex. By simply having students of different genders in one class room, you open up for self-conscious feelings and limitation. For example, take a student who wants to contribute to class, but because he/she is concerned that their statement may be wrong, may make him/her look like a nerd, or make him/her look stupid, they are unwilling to participate. In single-sex classes a lot of that pressure is taken away because no one is trying to impress anyone else - the environment is strictly one of education. Even in a case where someone places their boyfriend/girlfriend as the source of inspiration for their studies, being separated while learning will allow them to give the proper attention necessary to their classes. The goal of going to school is to learn, and (on occasion) to teach students how to learn by themselves. By that definition, it doesn't make a difference how a student learns, but rather that they understand their subject properly. By having boys and girls in the same classroom, it does not ensure that they will come away with a proper understanding of a subject because the learning style is not suited to their needs. I can bring a personal example. I volunteer in a kindergarten. The first half of the day I'm with only girls, and the second half, with both girls and boys. By that contrast, I often see just how different students are. With your permission, I'm going to conclude this a little bit later. I'm really busy right now and will probably not get a chance for the next day or so, but I didn't want to forfeit this round. The next round I will continue to argue my points and bring some refutations to your points. Once again, my apologies.
Single-sex Schools Are Good For Education

Thank you for your reiteration of good wishes. This round I will simply be posting my position and supporting beliefs. I will use the coming rounds for refutation and expounding on these ideas. My position is that single-sex schools are good for EDUCATION purposes. 1) Sexual attraction is one of the most powerful desires in the world. Even subconsciously, we tend to act differently (body language-wise) when members of the opposite sex are around. Behaviors that animals exhibit during courting are also exhibited by humans (often subconsciously) when in situations involving opposite genders. For example, women may 'preen' themselves by playing with their hair, and men may show signs of assertiveness and dominance. If we do that subconsciously, then how much more so when we are around people that are attractive to us. It steers the mind in one direction, and causes problems in concentration, limits individuality, and limits expression. 2) Men and women are very different by nature. They think differently, and approach problems - be it emotional, social, and/or intellectual - very differently. That being the case, it is important to teach them in the way that they learn best and to utilize their learning style in order to maximize potential. 3) The classroom is not a social environment. Order is necessary in a school and during the time a lesson is in session is not a time for developing social skills. Many scenarios in a classroom are not conducive to a social atmosphere, such as a need for silence and concentration. People don't talk freely or deal with others the way they normally would in a social setting. There are other places for socializing with the opposite gender but not in a classroom, where learning is the goal. I also thought to mention that your opponent just made *her* arguments. :D Looking forward to yours.
Single-sex Schools Are Good For Education

(As a college student, I say "Good Luck To You, also!")Now, I say that single-sex schools are NOT good for education. Point 1. Students should not only develop their intellect and their ability to write and read but students should also be taught on other aspects such as: physical, social and emotional.I say this is one best point why single-sex schools are NOT good for education for the reason that when these schools exist many children and teenagers, especially those who are studying at such schools, would have limited emotional content. Consequently, they would be less sensitive when it comes to relationships and social activities where it requires them to be involve with other persons especially of those opposite sexes. They would be less responsible to themselves and other persons also when they grow up and do not have enough involvement in such environment. Point 2. Students would only have limited basic knowledge even on how they would react to some things involving two persons of opposite sex. At this point, not only they would be ignorant to these situations but it also affects their social health. Since these schools practice a 'single-sex class' (as I would call it) they would only observe common attitudes and characters on which their gender would have. For example: In a class of girls, these students would only observe on how girls would react to some situations and they themselves accept it as wrong or correct. I could say so, since girls think alike. The same aspect would apply for boys.Point 3. Teachers would be practiced less than those of the other schools.I could imagine so. It is because these teachers would only be teaching a class of the same gender. Their teaching ability would then be limited to those of the class he/she is teaching to. The teacher would not then have variations of teachings to make his/her lessons clearer since the teacher would only be talking to a class of the same gender in which the students think alike.Therefore, I could simply conclude that single-sex schools are NOT good for education. It applies for both students and teachers. I now let my opponent make his arguments.
Should Gay Marriage Be Allowed in Each U.S State

My opponent has done nothing but state that homosexuality goes against the religious institute of marriage, however two people can be married by religion without the government involved. This debate is over the legalization of secular marriage as a dignifying institute of the government. The legal institute has no relation to religion. The very proving fact is that atheists can marry. Legalizing homosexual marriage would not force priests to conduct said marriages if they so disagreed with them. This right is exercised between Jew and Non-Jew couples fairly often.
Should Gay Marriage Be Allowed in Each U.S State

I would like to point out that this is an argument over legal marriage, and not spiritual or religious views. If homosexuals cannot be legally married, then revoke that right for every couple. The church cannot influence the legal process, although some argue that it does. Homosexuals can now choose surrogacy to produce a biological child, and does my opponent mean to say that a child of adopted parents is not as valued as a child of birth parents? Marriage is not about family, it is about legal affairs. Should infertile females be restricted from marriage because they cannot reproduce? My opponent fails to use any evidence that can be defended by anything except faith.
Should Gay Marriage Be Allowed in Each U.S State

First I would ask you to pardon my loss of time to post my argument, I was busy. First and foremost, gay marriage is not marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman that they will take ownership of raising a child to a well being. Gay marriage takes the part of making a child apart. Homosexuals must adopt a child to raise one. Imagine if the world was all homosexuals, there would be no children to continue raise. Gay marriage also goes against Christianity and over 2 billion people in the world believe in this religion. Most would think that these homosexuals are going against God. Homosexuals would,according to Christians, be going against the way God wanted the world. In conclusion, gay marriage goes against Christianity and even other religions and gay marriage isn't actual marriage. Sources: http://www.frc.org... http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Should Gay Marriage Be Allowed in Each U.S State

I'll start this argument by clearly stating my definitions. [1]. Marriage: The legal binding of two individuals that results in recognition of their unity. [2.] Relationship: Two people who agree to be bound in legal marriage, for whatever their purpose. Marriage, in this respect, has nothing to do with any concept of family or love. The purpose of legal marriage is to enable certain rights to two people who bind into a relationship. Legal marriage also allows for insurance of property and finances if said relationship fails. You can argue for days about family-values and God, but the fact is that legal marriage is merely a legal affair. There is nothing to do with what family-values or religion the couple identifies with. The argument of God's plan for man and a woman would imply that atheists, or any person who does not believe in God, should not be allowed to get married either. Marriage cannot b held in the same view-point of values in the legal form as it is in the religious form.
It is Possible for the Entire World to Live in Peace

Thanks for posting your argument so quickly after I posted mine. Saying that the USA is a capitalist country and that it will never change is a very defeatist statement. Capitalism fuels the negative side of our emotional spectrum (greed, survival of the fittest etc.) and this needs to be prevented. Hatred, greed and arrogance are all entities created by us, developed naturally over thousands of years human existence. We'll never get rid of these habits because they've physically become a part of who we are, but if we teach people to understand and to accept then everyone could have the opportunity to live a peaceful life. "Who would monitor these revenues?" Simple answer: the government. And it's not just the revenues that need to be monitored, it's the entire structure of the corporation and/or rich person. Money needs to be fairly distributed. That doesn't mean everyone should be on the same weekly wage, it just means that 1% of the population shouldn't own more money than the rest of the population combined (http://bloom.bg...). Money is the main catalyst for war so it's crucial that we moderate cash flow in order to suppress our motivation for greed. There's a minimum wage, so why isn't there a maximum wage? Nobody needs billions of pounds sitting in the bank. "A body of people, most likely, who would control where the money would go. But with this much power, this body would likely become corrupt." This is correct. Large governments ruling large areas of land are often corrupt due to an overload of power. The least corrupt countries in the world are the smaller ones, and the larger countries such as Russia, China and America are all among the most corrupt countries in the world (http://bit.ly...). Governments should be implemented that control a maximum population of around six million people in order to prevent large scale corruption and a potential conflict (domestically or internationally). At the end of the day, it's governments that start wars and this needs to stop. I'm not talking about conjuring up some 'miracle' method of incinerating hatred and greed, it's certainly not that simple. However, there must be certain political and social structures that don't focus as much on violence, wealth and consumerism that work in the best interests of the people and not the people's weaknesses (making people work hard for a low wage, bargains, brainwashing adverts etc.). Denmark is a peaceful and wealthy nation with over one million people non-danish people living in the country (http://bit.ly...). If Denmark can do it, then why can't everyone else project the same societal ideas but with their own unique cultures and politics? We are the most intelligent species on this planet, we can work it out.
It is Possible for the Entire World to Live in Peace

I will start off by saying that yes, I which violence, greed, hate, etc. would all stop. And yes we should strive to stop wars and violence with understanding and peace. But we must also be realistic. "Humans are selfish and bursting with zeal, but these are entities ignited by capitalism which has taught us to be more selfish and inconsiderate towards other humans we share this beautiful Earth with. Many people believe that money is the root of all corruption and in some ways this is true. However, it's only ever those who have too much money or not enough of it that seem to emancipate corruption (Corporations steal from us by evading taxes or by charging extortionately for mandatory items like food and shampoo while poor people often steal or beg for money to sustain a standard of living). If we can harness a balance in society where corporation's revenues are heavily moderated and poverty is diminished, then we can all live in harmony." I agree that capitalism "encourages" greed, and greed in turn turns humans against one another. However, America is capitalist and will probably remain such. Not to mention that America is continuing to spread capitalism worldwide. "If we can harness a balance in society where corporation's revenues are heavily moderated and poverty is diminished, then we can all live in harmony." But who would moderate these revenues? A body of people, most likely, who would control where the money would go. But with this much power, this body would likely become corrupt. "The happiest countries in the world are all among the most peaceful according to the World Happiness Report (http://bit.ly......) which analyses factors such as GDP, life expectancy, social support and freedom has deemed the most peaceful countries such as Denmark, New Zealand and Iceland all to be the happiest populations on the planet." But these countries also have populations on the lower scale (https://www.cia.gov...), as well less ethnic/race diversity and or less religious diversity, both are known to cause tension/war. https://www.cia.gov... https://www.cia.gov... (You can look up the other countries if you wish). "World peace can happen, we just need discover a method of moderating hatred and selfishness and learn to accept our differences. A vast number of nations have already succeeded in doing this so it's definitely possible." And what are the chances we will actually find some sort of miracle method to moderate hatred and selfishness? If anything, I would argue that religion/philosophy can help people go on the right track (peace, love, etc.), but sadly, I see these things dying around me. Religion is slowly dwindling, and many religious people aren't serious about their faith. And a vast number of nations have not learned to accept our differences.
It is Possible for the Entire World to Live in Peace

War and anger is not created by disagreement, it is created by a selfish lack of acceptance. Two factions might disagree on land, or oil or the contrasting colour of their skin, but it's ultimately the fact that the two factions are not accepting of each other that leads to conflict. The vast majority of people on this planet desire peace, and those that don't are living a misunderstood life. Acceptance can be found through understanding and that should be the final goal of humanity: to understand and accept each other. You're views are very much defeatist and tuned into the world we are currently live in; a world where hatred and violence has been caressed by the media and the government. We find entertainment through violence - video games have been created that award players with points for every time they kill another human and most movies released in modern times feature some form of violence. Humans are selfish and bursting with zeal, but these are entities ignited by capitalism which has taught us to be more selfish and inconsiderate towards other humans we share this beautiful Earth with. Many people believe that money is the root of all corruption and in some ways this is true. However, it's only ever those who have too much money or not enough of it that seem to emancipate corruption (Corporations steal from us by evading taxes or by charging extortionately for mandatory items like food and shampoo while poor people often steal or beg for money to sustain a standard of living). If we can harness a balance in society where corporation's revenues are heavily moderated and poverty is diminished, then we can all live in harmony. Peace is happiness, and people need to know this. The happiest countries in the world are all among the most peaceful according to the World Happiness Report (http://bit.ly...) which analyses factors such as GDP, life expectancy, social support and freedom has deemed the most peaceful countries such as Denmark, New Zealand and Iceland all to be the happiest populations on the planet. Freedom, well-being, equality and other commodities associated with peace are all things people want. Countries drowned in a vast lake of corruption and conflict like Syria, South Sudan and Nigeria are among the most unhappy World peace can happen, we just need discover a method of moderating hatred and selfishness and learn to accept our differences. A vast number of nations have already succeeded in doing this so it's definitely possible.
It is Possible for the Entire World to Live in Peace

The reality is that people will always have different views, different beliefs, which will contradict. These differences will create factions, and these factions are likely to clash. Different national leaders will have different 'goals' for their country. There will always be countries that want to expand, always be dictators and terrorists that create war between countries. History repeats itself. World peace, unfortunately, is a desk theory, nothing more, nothing less.
College scholarship football players should receive a stipend or a form of payment for their service

Obviously, I am aware of NCAA rule: "It is a violation of the NCAA rules for athletes to accept money or gifts while intending to remain eligible." If that wasn't the case, this argument would not have even been raised. When it comes to the scholarships given, on average a student athlete, at Florida State University for example, receives 1,500 dollars a semester for meals and books. A meal plan will add up to 1,200 dollars a semester leaving the student athlete 300 dollars for books. Depending on their major, this would not even cover there books. With this in mind, depending on the athlete, he receives less money than a regular student on scholarship. Some student athletes are not even on scholarship. It is indeed a benefit that students get to travel; however it is more of a hindrance than a reward. When the average student has a big test coming up, they could choose to call in sick to work or have a friend cover. Student athletes do not have that luxury. When there is a game in Ohio, the student athlete has to go. During the game there is no studying. Traveling also causes them to miss class time, sometimes several days in a row. They miss tests and specified instruction that cannot be made up. Depending on the time of the year, student athletes can really fall behind on their studies Also, you said you work 26 hours a week, a college football player can easily put in 30 hours a week and not receive any form of payment for it. This is not including game days or summer training. There are special faculties for student athletes because there are certain regiments that they need to specialize in. It would be hard to fit over 125 football players on campus facilities, with most of the athletes weighing close to 300 pounds. As for trainers, there are not any special trainers accessible to the athletes. The coaches make the workout regiments for athletes to follow through with. These "trainers" serve more as doctors. They are needed in case an emergency, broken bones or head injuries, occur. Schools are given a certain amount of money a year, and they choose how it will be spent. Schools should make better decisions on what needs to be built and spend the money more wisely, like on student athletes that bring in multi-million dollars through their services. Football players do not see any of the thousands of dollars that they are compensated for. A week in the life of a college football player is more time demanding and also physically demanding. At my university, the average time spent per week exceeds the time of any campus or off campus job. While they work less hours they choose what happens with their money.
College scholarship football players should receive a stipend or a form of payment for their service

In my communications classes I have repeatedly debated the topic of paying college football players because they are unable to work. Due to how much time is spent in the off season as well at in season. I am a college football player myself and find it hard to support my personal expense. Toiletries, clothes, food other than the dining and even a night out once and a while. Having school paid is indeed a big burden off my shoulders but school alone is not the financial issue of any college student. Theres also the fact that university's make so much money off the athletes that a portion of should go to the players. After all they are the one's people come to see. College coaches make allot of money, just half their salary without incentives would be more than enough to help out the players.
Forks are superior to spoons.

That's where you're wrong kiddo. Cereal and soup can both be eaten with the fork, though it may be difficult, you can eat the main bits of solid food and the move on to drinking the broth/milk. On the other hand, the spoon makes it extremely difficult to eat foods such as steak, waffles, basically anything round and flat, salad, and numerous other foods that require a fork to be eaten properly.
Forks are superior to spoons.

Can You eat Cereal with Forks, Yeah that's what I thought. Mmm.. maybe this delicious soup would be great with a fork, oh wait...oops only spoons can be used with soup, spoons are the original utensil and are superior to forks, forks cant make up their mind whether three stabbies, 4 stabbies are just one. oh wait that's a knife. Spoons are Ultimate