BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politically Correctness is Politically Incorrect in itself

Well, my debate was why "Politically Correctness is Politically Incorrect in itself" you pretty much described to my why to be Politically Correct. Really what I see in Politically Correctness is PC stopping people from expressing there Beliefs and Religion... Like the Happy Holidays thing...when i say "Merry Christmas" do i push my religion on Jews or Muslims...no...all im doing is expressing myself...When im forced to be PC i'm stoped from using my first amendment...When I'm PC i'm stopped from using my rights i got from the Bill...of Rights. I don't say...hey you jew...hey you Muslim...hey you athiest...bow down and worship Christ...all im doing is enjoying my holiday and using the right i got from the first amendment... Now... the goverment has to be PC b/c if it chooses one holiday over another than its in trouble but I shouldn't have to stop saying the name of my holiday just b/c i have to be PC. So, since your debate will be the last one...only 2 rounds...please address and debate why to be Politically Correct ISN'T Politically Incorrect
Long Summer Breaks for Elementary and Middle School students Should be Eliminated

As a teacher myself, I am sure many educators would oppose this plan. Teachers enjoy their time off as much as their students. However, we must overcome the selfish desires that we have for vacation time since it is harming the children in the long run. Certain charter schools have experimented with longer school days and fewer breaks in between. One of the most notable charter schools are the KIPP schools, which have invaded poor and under performing neighborhoods and had a significant positive effect on their students. Test scores are up in almost every school and the rate of graduation and future college attendance are dramatically affected by their new model.
Long Summer Breaks for Elementary and Middle School students Should be Eliminated

I am not arguing that students don't get time off. Rather, I am suggesting that they have breaks every 10-12 weeks. These breaks could last between 1-3 weeks each. This would give them sufficient time to recover from the stress of school and spend time with friends and family. However, the duration would be short enough that they wouldn't experience the serious effects that a 12 week vacation has on a student's education. An analysis of 39 studies concerning summer breaks showed that students lost "one month on a grade-level equivalent scale". This effect is most prominent in Math, which is a vital subject area, especially in the world we live in today. "The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and Meta-Analytic Review" Cooper, Harris; Nye, Barbara; Charlton, Kelly; Lindsay, James; Greathouse, Scott. Review of Educational Research, Fall 1996, 66, 3, Proquest pg. 227
Steps taken towards Equality of Race/ Religion/ Gender are infact segrating us further.

My purpose for participating in this debate was to see another viewpoint on this subject matter, i gave facts on both gender and racism, though the religious subject was a bit lacking, i will admit. You gave absolutely no information regarding the subject, if you win it is no dirt off my shoulders, as you use technicalities to win over any knowledge of the subject. You should be a lawyer not a debater. My purpose was to open societies eyes to our own self destruction because i genuinely care, you on the other hand have no passion you are simply in it to win it, and for the record i don't care if writing this isn't proper debate format. It is useless to argue my point now as you have completely derailed from the subject, i would like to thank you for wasting my time debating with someone who doesn't even care. No hard feelings
Steps taken towards Equality of Race/ Religion/ Gender are infact segrating us further.

What PRO has to ProvePro has accepted the BOP. The resolution is: "Steps taken towards Equality of Race/ Religion/ Gender are infact segrating us further." In order for the resolution to be affirmed, pro must show that nearly every step that America has previously made which attempted to improve racial, genderal, and religious equality, are currently segregating us further.[1] This is proved by my source 1.PRO hasn't even come close to fulfilling BOPPro has argued only a few things and has used litterally no evidence to back up his claims. There is a famous saying which states "That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". And thus, we can clearly reject the entirety of the last speach as litterally all of it was based on personal opinion and fact-asserting. For instance my opponent has asserted that black history month, ethnically based scholarships, affirmative action, political correctness, lack of prayer in schools, and forcing preasts to marry homosexuals, is a result of indoctrination, is demeaning, promotes atheism, is discrimination, is biased and violates rights; all of this was stated without proof and without warrant or reason. In one instance my opponent even states "It is my wholehearted opinion..." In any case the facts are clear, we have been presented with far to much ocnjecture and not enough cold hard facts. The only argumentation that pro gives us is twice through arguing that certain things are rascist by definition, yet even if these one or two instances, such as affirmative action, can-be/are actually rascist, and promote inequality, this certainly doesn't prove that *nearly all* steps taken by the USA to achieve equality of race, gender, and religion are doing just the opposite. What PRO should have provided is something which inherently underlies all instances of attempting to increase equality. But instead we have recieved conjecture, opinions, and only a few "steps" which are possibly resulting in further inequality. PRO hasn't even told us how many steps have been taken...you should assume an almost infinite amount until specified for fairness, as he holds BOP.Furthermore there should be no new arguments accepted in the last speach. The last speach is meant for recap and why a person wins. If the opponent argues next round he will have no way to respond to my refutation which is unfair.You Vot3 CON because of A, B, and C a.) PRO takes the full burden to prove. b.) PRO must argue that ALMOST ALL steps taken by the USA to achieve equality do just the opposite, however he has failed to do this, we have only recieved a few scattered examples, most are based on conjecture, the rest are only a few examples. Thus reject the first speach as insufficient. c.) PRO should have shown and must show something Inherent about decisions which try to increase equality in the US that result in increased inequality. PRO has not done this and thus cannot win until he does. However there shouldn't be any new arguments made in the last rounds.Citations[1]http://tinyurl.com...
Steps taken towards Equality of Race/ Religion/ Gender are infact segrating us further.

I have come to understand that in the U.S. Equality for the most part has been achieved for quite some time. However it stands to reason that the methods put in place to level the playing field so to speak, or support minority groups did not help equality but rather simply drove a wedge between the people. I implore you to try to look at these issues from an outside perspective rather then the media induced brainwashed minds we have all been programmed to have.
Steps taken towards Equality of Race/ Religion/ Gender are infact segrating us further.

Although this round hasn't turned out how I had hoped I do want PRO to know that I didn't mean to be cheap, these are my honest opinions of the round...In recap of what has happened so far, I extend all of the following arguments because the opponent has dropped them...a.) PRO takes the full burden to prove. b.) PRO must argue that ALMOST ALL steps taken by the USA to achieve equality do just the opposite, however he has failed to do this, we have only recieved a few scattered examples, most are based on conjecture, the rest are only a few examples. Thus reject the first speach as insufficient. c.) PRO should have shown and must show something Inherent about decisions which try to increase equality in the US that result in increased inequality. PRO has not done this and thus cannot win until he does. However there shouldn't be any new arguments made in the last rounds.So this round goes pretty simply, My opponent has not disagreed with me that she must prove that almost all steps taken by the USA to promote equality do just the opposite, in order to win he must prove that this is true, thus the BOP he has accepted goes unfulfilled. I will once again go over my arguments but keep in mind that this is all which is neccesary to win...OnePro has to prove that MOST "steps" taken to decrease inequality in the US, by the US, do the opposite, and segregate us. This is supported by my source from the "English Language and Usage Stack Exchange" Which is a website of people who specialize in answering grammatical questions. Even in context they agree on this interpritation.TwoWithout evidence or reasoning we can disregard that which was asserted without evidence or reasoning. If you look at PRO's arguments you will neither see a source, nor a warrant for any of the claims made aside from two definitions, however, even if I conceded these arguments the BOP would not be fulfilled becuase this would only prove that one or two instances of equality "steps" did the opposite, not that almost all steps have the opposite effect. Once again, PRO should have shown something inherent about these policies (aka "steps") which almost always results in a segregational effect. This has not been proven in the least bit.A response to my opponentIt is not, and has never been, my perogotive to be 'lawyery' about this subject. However I agreed to this debate's resoution which means you're arguments should also reflect that resolution. I have only stated the truth in anything I have said. The arguments presented seem more like talking points than real arguments....I feel as though this would be better on a forum, instead of as a debate round...I would be happt to redo this match if you re-vamp your arguments...Thank you...
Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege.

Summary The issue of access to affordable health care has become a pressing concern in these hard economic times, exacerbated by high unemployment and loss of job-based health insurance, the expense of obtaining individual, private health insurance, denial of care by private, for-profit insurers through pre-existing conditions and rescission, and the increasing costs of health care while wages are stagnating. The change from historically non-profit to for-profit insurance providers in the latter half of the 20th century is probably another factor that has affected the nature of access and delivery of care. As our government is based on the consent of the governed, please note that the U.S. Congress has recently passed one health care reform bill in the House of Representatives; the Senate is working on their version. The primary inference in the given topic of this debate, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege", is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). I have based this conclusion on 1) the structural inherency that we possess inalienable, human rights and that our society was established, among other things, to promote the general welfare; 2) health being a primary need that is required for people to become productive citizens; 3) the benefit to individuals and society as a whole; and 4) this right being in the same category as the rights to education, police, and fire protection (none of whom are forced or enslaved to deliver their services), which all citizens currently have access to. My opponent's reasoning rests primarily on the fallacies of avoiding the issue and shifting the ground. From the beginning, he and I were arguing about different topics. His first sentence in his first round was an ad hominem argument, shifting the attention from the argument to my ability to reason and know the difference between the definitions of a privilege and a right. Challenging the definition is the opponent's prerogative; however, at that time, he neglected to provide another definition with a more reasonable interpretation of the proposition and thus, avoided the issue through simple evasion. Instead, he deliberately distorted the definition by truncating the one I provided and used the fallacy of composition in arguing that this was my definition. He chose to alter the topic of the debate, not once, but twice, by 1) changing my argument to one of a policy claim ("the government should intervene in regards to health care") and later, in his own words, 2) he "took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' which is your stance." Both of these are major shifts in ground, neither are topical to the debate that he accepted (see proposition of fact above), and thus, avoid the given issue. In other words, my opponent accepted the given debate and then argued against other topics of his choosing, without regard to my stated claim.
We need to fund NASA's space exploration

sorry for the inconvenience of round set up. This will just be rebuttals and closing statements. The object of this debate is to yes state an opinion and pursuade the audience to vote in our direction. Here is why we must vote with me. 1: I provided more evidence 2: The cancer patients do need more help, but we can't take it away from NASA. Take it away from a group that isn't finding new planets, new ways of life, and so forth. This is like band doing really well while the football team sucks. The school board then cuts band to fund football. NOT SMART!!! The world is getting smaller and NASA has found a new, possible Earth! Don't cut their funds. Expand those said funds instead! 3: My opponent just helped my case. They cut time to Mars. Awesome! Also found a new planet here people! 4: NASA is to test the limitations of man. View my second point. We need to keep funding them and expand the said budget! 5: Through all this evidence please side with me!
We need to fund NASA's space exploration

Is it a possibility to add a round? I'm new to this website. I apologize for my ignorance. First, I'd like to make it clear that this topic is AN OPINION, so I'm going to PERSUADE the audience to vote in my direction. Intro: Though space is vast, infinite and truly brilliant, my argument is to provide evidence to state that it isn't within our best interests. My argument begins here. I believe that there are many types of diseases that are deadly, that would be in our best interests to spend our money on. For example, 1 cancer patient costs 257,000 per year to treat and even this treatment isn't guaranteed to cure their specific type of cancer. NASA's best rocket technology to date is called "VISIMR", and even this new found fusion technology can only cut the time to travel to Mars. NASA didn't state how much it would cut the time in the article, so don't ask. We need more advanced technology to safely explore space. Finally, an article on www.livescience.com stated that there are currently 3.5 acres of land that is usable, just for humans. They estimate it could sustain over 10 billion people. We currently have 7 billion. This sustainability issue is relevant, but not dangerously relevant. You would have to reasearch very advanced technology to even consider travelling to another habitable planet. This idealism is far fetched. Sources; NASA.gov, www.livescience.com
We need to fund NASA's space exploration

rules: 1. be respectful 2. play by the rules 3. use evidence 4. no claims 5. have fun rounds: acceptence opening statements questions answers rebuttal and closing remarks Intro: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." R13; John F. Kennedy 1: The world is getting smaller. We are running out of room. More and more schools are growing. Here is an example. http://www.fmglobalreason.com... 2: What is NASA's purpose if not to explore? Here is our answer on NASA's own website. http://www.nasa.gov... 3: Recent find. Here is something really cool that could help all of mankind for future generation to come courtisy of NASA. http://time.com... Conclusion: In the voers please make all points out to me. It is a request and if the voters would look up my past rules and regulations you would understand how I set up the debate. My opponent must agree to the terms and conditions to accept the debate. I will answer these questions in r4.
We need to fund NASA's space exploration

It is not my responsibility to look up your rules, it is just a request. They were not stated within THIS debate, therefore there are no rules. It's not my problem. Second of all, this debate isn't CONTROVERSIAL, it is simply an opinion. I can convince the audience to vote my way, because that's the way the debates on this website works. This is the way I will present my argument. Third of all, who is "we"? I doubt Vladimir Putin would donate money to NASA, nor the Chinese government. I will hold these facts against you because you did not state them before the debate. Also, what type of "space exploration"? Exploring planets like Mars? Exploring the moon? Or just chilling out in the cosmos. These facts are important.
Water Boarding

I apologize for the misconception, as monkeys typing on typewriters (Your avatar) can easily be male OR female and I assumed the former. Back to the debate. My opponent supports waterboarding because she claims that it is extraordinarily scary. While I admit that being semi-drowned and brought back to life over and over again is pretty bad, I would also argue that chopping off the tip of a person's finger, reviving him/her, then chopping off the tip of another finger until he/she cracks is more traumatic. In addition, there will be psychological as well as physical scars. Another alternative, if we are to stick with suffocation, is hanging. Hang the person from a noose, and let them go once they start flailing. This saves quite a bit of water. I could go on forever, but my main point here is that if our goal is to set aside individual rights for the wellbeing of the majority, why would we consider waterboarding when there are so many better alternatives?
Water Boarding

Im a her by the way... haha... and although I think you kinda got me pinned here... Im going to wing it and see if I can still get this leaning towards my side... haha... Have you ever been in a situation where you cannot breath? Those few moments of panic before you finally are able to eradicate the problem and restore your breathing abilities? Once I was at a friend's house, eating noodles when she choked on a noodle. She was able to dislodge the noodle after only three about the half a second of not being able to breath. She immediately started crying and was severely traumatized by the incident. Imagine this over and over, being brought to the edge of consciousness, to be let up only brought down again. That would be a good indication for me to do what the people wanted. If I was a guy the next scariest thing would probably be messing with my genital region.
Water Boarding

My opponent is a supporter of waterboading, which wikipedia gives a detailed description of: . http://en.wikipedia.org... While I agree with my opponent's arguments, I find that this does NOT support his position. Yes, I concede that torturing one person to save hundreds, if not thousands is a worthy cause. However, this does not mean we should support waterboarding. Waterboarding is a relatively weak form of torture. Yes, it can lead to death and serious health problems, but it is nothing compared to the more favorable electroshock, branding, slicing off of extremities, use of hot coals or glass shards, etc. Either that, or just traditional beating with a hammer through a phone book, or even better, mangling of the genitals. That having been said, I simply make this first contention, that waterboarding should NOT be used as torture because so many more fun and gruesome alternatives exist.
Water Boarding

What if we knew someone had information about a possible terrorist attack... but we couldn't get it out of them? What if we had been able to STOP 9/11 before it happened? What if we were able to save hundreds of lives by merely causing a single human being extreme discomfort and even maybe anguish? Who are we to say that the mistreating of a few people is wrong, even if it saves many? Search inside yourself, and think, if I could either be tortured against my will or save even a few lives of mothers, fathers and children, would you? So what is the torture if one person against the lives of hundreds???
Should Bibles be Allowed in Public Schools

Thank you asshat, I too enjoyed debating you! I am encouraged to see students like you take a position on something you feel strongly about and express those ideas in a manner others can contemplate and consider as you did. The truth is, it is a difficult subject matter to debate on either side. Debate is what makes a democracy healthy. Knowledge is what makes you spiritually and mentally healthy. Perhaps someday, schools will consider offering theology as an elective you can sign up for. Theological philosophy is critical in understanding our past. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, but if you ignore it, you do not know the full story. You did well my friend and I would love to debate you again. In closing, while it is true, many public schools are attempting to stifle student prayer in school. They will never be able to do this as long as they keep giving the students tests. Take care and good luck! :)
Should Bibles be Allowed in Public Schools

In conclusion, I have had actually a great time discussing this debate with you. It has been quite the show. I am just a sophomore in high school and I really tried my hardest at this debate. Alas, you have showed me reasons why the Bible is not allowed in Public schools. I wanted to see the other side of things, and you gave every single fact that states why Bibles aren't allowed. I look forward for the next time we might debate.
Should Bibles be Allowed in Public Schools

I rest assured that this topic is quite broad. However, I support somewhat of what you say because I respect anyone, in any religion that they believe, because that is what Freedom of Religion is all about; the right to practice ones belief in all areas of this country. Politically speaking, if you fail to realize that God, the only one true God, had intended for all mankind to spread the Gospel in all areas including schools; speaking as a believer myself. Then it should be that way. Unfortunately, we live in a sinful world and everyone has their different logic of beliefs. Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and look forward to what you have to say.
Should Bibles be Allowed in Public Schools

Hello, thank you for providing me an opportunity to help bridge a gap of misunderstanding regarding freedom of religion and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a theist, I deeply respect every individual's right to practice any religion and believe in and worship any God(s) they choose in accordance with their traditions. I will however; argue a public K12 school is not a proper venue to teach theological philosophy beyond the context of world history itself.