BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities

Drug testing on students is not nessecary. Imagine if you wanted to apply for a sports team and had to pee in a cup to join. If you had to do this wouldn't you be mad? The Government would loose 2 billion dollars doing random drug tests! Even if the government did start drug testing, what would they accomplish. No Middle school students have been tested positive on a drug test for performance enhancing drugs. The few cases in which a student has been tested positive relate to use of marijuana, which does not enhance performance.
Maryland is in the South

Mason-dixon, Shasion-shckson. More land is south of it than land north of it. That, and it is north of D.C. It is either central or northern. NO, it is NOT a state far enough north to be considered a New England state. I see no reason to call it a southern state. P.S. What is the point of this debate anyway? THE CIVIL STUFF IS OVER AFTER OBAMA GOT ELECTED PRESIDENT.
Maryland is in the South

By the US Census Regions. See where Maryland is. We all know this tree, the Bald Leaf Cypress. Its found in Southern Swamps and makes its range North Into the Delmarvahttp://o.quizlet.com... Does the tree look Southern.http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us... Southern Maryland and the Delmava have southern accents.http://i4.photobucket.com... This is apart of the Maryland state flag that was used as the secessionist flag during the Civil War. Maryland's state song talks about Lincoln being a tyrant, Northern scum and secession witch was also written during the war.http://msa.maryland.gov...
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

"The Con side has not explained anything about what JAPAN has done, either" The burden of proof has lied on the pro side and I have refuted all the claims he has presented. He claimed to say Japan was the "bully" of East Asia but has failed in showing any proof whatsoever. "Both countries never had an evil incident of where they wanted to invade an exotic territory, unlike Japan, which in the current name they tried to conquer the entire East Asia. " For the third time, the pro side ignored the evidence of the war between India and China based on a border dispute. "Therefore, your point that China and Russia are fighting over a territory may be true, but it cannot be compared to Japan's case. " Agreed, they can not be compared, the border dispute between Russia and China has resulted in people being killed. I posted in one of my earlier links. However, the pro side has not shown where Japan has murdered Chinese over their border disputes.
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

Sorry; it seems that I have forgotten to post something and the timer went out- let's continue the debate. The Con side has not explained anything about what JAPAN has done, either. Please do not expect something out of me if you are not proving it from my point, either. China's Zenbao Island dispute is a matter between China and Russia. However, Russia had no record of trying to invade an entire part of a continent (Russia is a giant country, so you can't blame them for being so huge), as well as China. Both countries never had an evil incident of where they wanted to invade an exotic territory, unlike Japan, which in the current name they tried to conquer the entire East Asia. Therefore, your point that China and Russia are fighting over a territory may be true, but it cannot be compared to Japan's case. And if Japan had such an event, that automatically makes the proof that Japan is the bully of East Asia. Therefore, your correction was in fact, invalid.
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

The pro side just made an error by claiming that China has not gone to war with her neighbors. The pro side has ignored my point that China has gone to war with India in 1962. He has also ignored my point that China and Russia have had causalities as a result of the Zenbao Island dispute. The pro side insists that Japan is encouraging violence yet has failed to show proof of it. His argument so far seems to be based in his own opinion rather than fact. So far he has yet to prove Japan is the "bully of East Asia" as he claims.
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

Your statement that "Japan has nevergone to war on Diaoyu Islands or resorted to violence" cannot be more incorrect. When China told Japan that the islands needed to be taken care by the ICJ, Japan denied it and refused to go to court. This means that Japan is favoring violence. What's more, Japan is being a hypocrite by asking South Korea to go to ICJ for Dokdo. The title of "The East Asian Bully" cannot go to China. Even though they are harming several tribes and countries, they did not go to WAR with these people. North Korea cannot be one, either. They are known to be rhetorical to United States and South Korea, but these people are also at stake, too- no money, tries to not get into war, and they are just trying to be their own. Japan, however, has commited an entire war to wipe off certain races, and tried to conquer the entire Eastern section of Asia and make it into Japan. Today, they still have the remnants of their history by taking away other countries territories!
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

As mentioned earlier, the topic at hand is the current foreign policy. In the past it could be considered that Japan was the bully of East Asia with invasions into China, Korea, and even Southeast Asia but that is not what the pro side is arguing. But the title of bully of East Asia would be more fitting title for China or North Korea. Japan has not gone to war over the Diaoyu Islands or resorted to violence as you claim. China has proven to have border disputes not only with Japan but also with their neighbors to the north and to the south. China clashed with India back in 1962 over contested borders. China has also clashed with Russia on Zhenbao. Both of these borders are still disputed. With such aggressive behavior how could they not be considered a bully? Japan has yet to start a war or coerce its' neighbors through force as China has done repeatedly. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

Japan has been trying to invade their neighboring countries during the wartimes, and that may seem like a past issue, it is something that Japan should not be excused with; they need to recognize that Japan is Japan, but their neighbors are NOT Japan. Today, Japan stirs up even more issues as they still invade other territories. Japan surrendered under the US in 1945. The US gave a rule to Japan not to have any weapons and anything that can attack; America would be their guard instead. They cannot declare wars, either. However, as soon as Japan got out of America's hands, they immediately broke both laws and became the 3rd nation to have the most military equipments in the world. Currently, they try not to make wars by having their opponents surrender without a word, but that's too unjust, since they are trying to harm them that way. And so, they use military to clash, which is visible in the dispute of Diaoyu Islands between Japan and China. So Japan IS going into violence.
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

I accept this challenge. As the con side I will be debating that Japan is not the "bully" of East Asia. It is the goal of my opponent to effectively prove Japan is the "bully" of East Asia. Meaning he must prove Japan currently is the "bully" of East Asia. First, two terms need to be adequately defined. Bully- A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people. East Asia-the countries and land area of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Macao, Mongolia, the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, and the Russian Federation in Asia. Japan's current foreign policy should not be confused with its' pre-1945 foreign policy. Japan's ambition for conquest died in 1945 with their new constitution imposed after their surrender to the Allied powers. Japan has not fought a war since 1945. The question becomes how has Japan been cruel to her neighbors? Cruelty suggests a form of violence is taking place. That is not the case, only minor disputes.
Japan is the 'bully' of East Asia.

I have saw a debate based on Japan being bad toward Korea. When the wrong team won, I was honestly shocked, because that really wasn't supposed to be the case. Therefore to be a bit more sure about this, I have put up a new debate not just based on Korea and Japan, but of the fact that Japan was giving so much misery towards to China, Korea, the entire Southeast Asia, and to many Oceanian Islands. Maybe currently they're a lot less harmful, but still, they are the main reason of why peace and unity cannot come into Eastern Asia. They steal islands, rewrite history from nowhere, and claims exotic opinions that came from nowhere, especially to Korea and China. Even today, they claim that the Yasukuni Shrine is a POSITIVE thing, tries to take away Dokdo, Diaoyu, and the Kuril, while they also claim that their abusive and torchuring colonization was to "improve" and "modernize" their country. That is just ridiculous!
Clarence Thomas isn't fit to be on the Supreme Court.

First off, I was mistaken on saying that you didn't know that he was African American, I meant to say, that you don't know, nor do you have proof, that he got into Yale because of Affirmative Action. You have also changed to saying that "He shouldn't have been appointed" rather than sticking to the Resolution, which is "Clarence Thomas isn't fit to be on the Supreme Court" stating that he shouldn't be on the supreme court now. You have only brought up evidence that certain people don't like him, but NOTHING that shows he has done something wrong. You make the fact that he scored 415 on the Segal-Cover sound like a bad thing, which is misleading, the Segal-Cover simply shows if someone is liberal or conservative. Can we really say that he is not fit to be a justice because his opinion isn't the same as Scalia? You also seem to be running Stare-Decisis into the ground, but that isn't a law, and just because most lawyers follow it, doesn't mean that every one should follow it. You have also stated that he was not supported by the ABA, but you failed to mention that the ABA is just a volunteer association. From what I have learned, I believe that Mr. Thomas is fully capable of doing his job as a justice, and that your attacks were misleading, and nothing more than personal attacks against the him.
Clarence Thomas isn't fit to be on the Supreme Court.

You seem to misunderstand me. I am not saying that he sould have been kicked off the court. That can only happen when he has commited a crime. Rather, I am saying that he never should have been nominated in the first place. You pointed out that it isn't a law that you have to follow stare decisis, but it is something that nearly every lawyer does. He isn't a qualified as a lawyer. Below are facts supporting that : The American Bar Association didn't support his nomination. They gave their approval of EVERY OTHER justice on the court except for him. NAACP, Urban League, and National Organization of Women all opposed his appointment He received a Segal-Cover score of 415. Segal Cover rates qualifications of SCOTUS justices on a 1 - 1000 point scale. he is the lowest on the court and the lowest in histoy of the Segal-Cover point system. I would like to point out that Justic Antonin Scalia, a strong conservative much like Thomas, has a perfect 1000. Just goes to show that this isn't because of Thomas' judicial philosoph, it is because of his qualification. I also would like to point out that Thomas is African American. You said that I had no way of knowing that, but it even says in his auto-biography that he is African American. I also would like to point out, on the topic of stare-deceisis, that even Scalia, who is very conservative, says that Thomas is "a nut" for not following stare deceisis.
Clarence Thomas isn't fit to be on the Supreme Court.

You seem to have no actual accusations towards Mr. Thomas that would justify his removal as a Justice, rather, your arguments seem to be more of personal attacks. You state that he does not follow Stare Decisis, but that is not a crime, the fact that he does not show that he has done anything wrong, but rather that he looks at cases individually, regardless of past experience. You put your word up against his by stating, "Affirmative Action used to get into Yale" but you have no proof other than that he is African American, and got into Yale during an affirmative action campaign, but you go further stating that "he really wasn't qualified to get into Yale Law", but he is said to have excelled academically in high school, and in 1971 he graduated 9th in his class with an english honors degree, you have not shown in any way that he wasn't qualified for Yale, nor have you shown that he was accepted purely because of Affirmative Action, all you have done is made assumptions, and personal attacks against Mr. Thomas. You also question him because he is a minority, within a minority, I don't see how this is at all relevant to his effectiveness, or ineffectiveness. It seems to me as though, if 90% of African Americans voted for democrats, but he was a republican, that he was obviously influentially, with whites too, which I see as a great accomplishment. And to answer your final question, who are you to say that he is incapable of doing his job because he doesn't ask questions? Unless you have proof that his lack of questions hinders his ability to do his job, this can only be seen as another one of your personal attacks, and assumptions.
Clarence Thomas isn't fit to be on the Supreme Court.

Many people know of Clarence Thomas, the only african american on the Supreme Court. He is also one of the two most conservative justices on the court. This is a bit of a suprise, as over 90% of african americans vote Democrat, the liberal party in the United States. Below are the reasons that I think C.T. isn't fit to be on the Supreme Court: Disagreement with Stare Deceisis: S.D. is the legal principal that literally means "let it stand". This is the principal that once a court rules one way in an argument. They should solve all like cases in the same way, unless their is overwhelming evidence that the original ruling is wrong. Clarence Thomas has said that he simply doesn't follow S.D., which is a legal rule in the U.S. Even the most novie lawyers know of and follow this rule, but he simply doesn't. EVERY OTHER JUSTICE FOLLOWS S.D. TO SOME EXTENT. Affirmative Action used to get into Yale: At face value, anyone who went to Yale Law would be thought of as a good lawyer. But look closer. C.T. was accepted into Yale Law during their Affirmative Action campaign. Although they haven't officially answered whether he was accepted because of this program or not, anyone can see that it helped him get in. So he really wasn't qualified to get into Yale Law. Also, CT always claims that he hasn't ever benifitted from Affirmative Action, even though he clearly obtained his law degree because of it. This hypocricy has no place on The Supreme Court. Doesn't Reflect View of Demographic: As I mentioned earler, 90% of blacks are Democrats. Then shouldn't their only representative on the S.C. have the views that they have. You would think so... but no. Asking ?: It is typical of Justices on the Supreme Court to ask questions, but CT rarely does. How can he decide how to rule without asking questions. I await a challenger.
The bombings of Japan by the US were not necessary

First I would like to point out that the Japanese did indeed commit atrocious acts which make Pearl Harbor look mild in comparison however that does not give us the right to respond in kind. I also realize that we dropped pamphlets warning them, but the citizens of Japan had no reason to believe such a bomb existed and even if they did it would not excuse the moral ramifications. Secondly, The Japanese were willing to conditionally the surrender but the United States wanted an unconditional surrender. Japan's one condition; that they be able to keep their Emperor. After we bombed them however we did let them keep their emperor albeit with reduced power. Some of Truman's top military advisers including Eisenhower and MacArthur were opposed to it, but he ignored their advice. Einstein was also appalled at the idea of the bomb. This is what Eisenhower said "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." [1] Robert Oppenheimer, the man largely responsible for the project, felt extreme guilt after the successful test launch. [2] Furthermore it should be the goal of war to keep civilian casualties to a minimum which the bombing did not accomplish. Bombs, especially atomic bombs, destroy large areas with no regard for weather there are innocent civilians or military personnel there. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were large cities, many of the residents being civilians. [3] [4] Not only did it cause immediate destruction but the effects were felt for years to come due to ionized radiation poisoning. Those that didn't die in the blast were slowly dying for years. [5] On top of this there were psychological damages as well. [6] Causing this level of suffering on anyone is inhumane even if they caused it to others. Thank you and I await the counter arguments. 1 http://www.doug-long.com... 2 http://www.youtube.com... (see video) 3 http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... 4 http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... 5 http://www.atomicarchive.com... 6 http://www.nytimes.com...
The Big Bang Theory Is True

I. PotentialalityNo im not using faulty logic. You haven't shown this is wrong. It is a very very very very good argument. You ignore and evade like a politcan. Nothing can disprove faraday's law. Its logic.II. Antimatter 1. Yes it does violate BB. If the BB is true an expansion from a point would create symmetristic from the point of expansion since it all must be conserved. If a parity violation exists the laws of physics would be messed up.2. Ad hoc ad hoc ad hoc! Its just trying to salvage an abaondond theory.III. Inflation Pro didn't respond to me here. He just evades evades evades. IV. Homogeneity of the Universe He evades here too. Why is he so scared?V. Galactic Evolution Pro runs away from this one too.VI. Abundance of Elements Evade. He ignored my scienceVII. Dark MatterOhhhhhhh sure ignore me here too. Wow do you guys see how flawed his arguments are. I ignored your evidence because DM is false. DM is just like the monsters in the room. Ohhhhhhhh. The paper does disprove Dark matter.VIII. Hubble's Law The expansion would be from the white hole. Nothing violated in it. The Copernican Principle is false because the expansion is all away from us.IX. White Hole Ohhhh so your saying my theory doesn't work under my theory therefore your theory is wrong. Space is irrelevant because God would be the background space. The evidence is the same as the BB even more because of the cosmological constants. Vote Con. Pro never did
The Big Bang Theory Is True

Potential Its not possible for faradays law to be false. By modal logic. You failed to refute. Anti matter Tea yeah so what? They haven't been proven to be true beyond doubt. The explanations fail. 1. This would be violating a prediction of the big bang. One disproves big bang. 2. Oh yes some how. Ad hoc. You can say somehow with anything. Inflation you didn't answer me. All those fit with white hole also inflation has problems i proved it. Homogeneity of the Universe The upper limit getting bigger assumes the big bang is true to interpret its data. No model but the big bang can say this. So big bang proves homogeneity and homogeneity proves big bang. Bad logic. Galatic evo I did address it. Other guy doesn't understand. Abundance of Elements Excuse me.... you achieved big bang newspaper synthesis! One does not simply achieve nuclosynthesis. How can you say that if there is so many unknown factors. The adjustable parameters are huge. Other guy just says there not. The number of adjustable stellar helium stars is more than the universes carbon potential. Come on. Dark Matter Notice how other guy is visually stumped. You can see the shock in his writing. He ran like a politician. Why is other guy soooo scared???? Dark matter has already disproved http://arxiv.org... Other guy is ascared of that study. VIII. Hubble's Law Whitehole would produce space. White Hole Big Bang Theory.. Time dilation and white hole aren't the same thing. Whitehole pruduces space time ect. "fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else)." No we wouldnt see a strong flux or see it. A whitehole would be one of immense size and producing space. Producing space would mask it from any xray or redshift.
The Big Bang Theory Is True

I'm doing this for a lot of reasons - Commitment, learning, and most importantly, the weekly stupid. The Big Bang Theory - "A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."[1] First round for acceptance, and please don't forfeit. Sources [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
New Tech High Schools

Is New Tech high schools good to students in recent times? The answer is NO. Regard to some cosmopolitan cities, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan are still using the so-called old fashioned teaching methods in high school. And, this makes them be so successful in the world economy. Let me share my experience in Hong Kong high schools. Because of there are 2 main public exams (HKCEE and A-levels examination), . http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk... And the A-levels tagged as the hardest A-levels exam in the world. Students here study really hard for the examinations. And the result would be they can survive in any countries, because they have better competitiveness than the others. I am not saying whole-person development, such as skills of working with others and critical thinking, is not important to students. Students can learn these kinds of things in college, but not in high school. High school is a place for to the grab more knowledge for future uses and learns discipline, if you don't have sufficient enough knowledge, how can you develop critical thinking, and if you don't have enough knowledge inside your mind, how can you get the projects done well? If so, I think we can do the same thing to the kindergarten children, just ask them do the group projects, can we? We all know that oneself would get lots of freedom in the college or after their education, they can choose go to work or not, they can choose to take the public responsibilities or not. If their discipline was not trained up yet in the high school, how can the societies relies on these people? If so, crime rate of a city would be rising with no doubt. Thank you!