BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Single sex schools are good for education

I believe that single-sex schools are not an ideal environment to teach children in Western society. The fundamental flaw in single-sex education is that its premise is reliant on every child being homogeneous; all boys fit their stereotype and all girls fit theirs. I can say immediately, from personal experience, that this is not true. I am gay and often found it difficult to socialise with other boys when growing up -- all my best friends were girls. If I were to be separated into an all-boy's class, I would have found it difficult to be happy and consequently to learn. Education does not consist of just core subjects and extracurricular activities; schools offer their pupils valuable life skills, which includes socialisation. Single-sex schools limit socialisation by gender and enforce a "them and us" mindset. Apart from the obvious disadvantage that this will have on the pupil when they find themselves in the workplace, it may also prove confusing when every other part of society encourages equality. I would much rather children to grow up in an environment with various different kinds of people -- different ethnicities, faiths and indeed gender. Teaching tolerance is just as important as core subjects. But do children learn better when taught without the opposite gender? The research is inconclusive; most research in favour of single-sex schools cite an increase in test scores by female pupils, but the boys seem to be getting the rough end of the deal because their test scores are often said to decrease. Other research claims that both genders perform better when taught together; I found this article thorough and interesting: http://www.greatschools.org...
Single sex schools are good for education

This is off my debate challenge in which my profile glitched and posted 3 rounds instead of 4 messing up the debateWe are going to do this formally with the resolution that it landed itResolution - Single sex schools are good for educationfor the purpose of this debate the definitions are as follows to avoid Semantics. Education - The process of teaching someone knowledge and information (in a school)Good - Beneficial in regards to education and learning Rounds Me(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Rebuttals, Re building Contentions, Closing statementsAdversary(1) Contentions(2) Rebuttals, Rebuilding Contentions, Closing statements(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type "no round as agreed upon" by adversary in the final round shall result in a full 7 point drop due to him having an extra round(2) FFS shall result in the loss of a conduct point, with multiple FFS resulting in a possibly full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges(3) No semantics or trolling. This is a serious debate.
Single sex schools are good for education

So there are two ways to look at thisWhat is the primary purpose of education?is it(1) to teach and prepare students for social conditions such as interaction with other studentsor(2) to teach and pass on knowledge to students about studies and topics they can use to advance in lifeThe first point i would like to bring up is that social factors can be taught outside of school as well. While my adversary is right when he states, they can be taught in school and it could help students. Students are just as likely to interact with each other outside of school. The primary focus in education is "grades and books" as he puts it. In addition to this it is not hindering social interaction entirely, just interaction with co ed members. Again this can be done outside of school as well. If students can still learn how to interact with each other away from school, such as dating and other things and still have their grades high in school this would be the best choiceSingle Sex schools offer that. It is a way to stop students from being distracted and have them focus on their studies. Again this is about reviewing what is a priority. When you are going to school are you going to learn about books and make good grades, or are you going to be socially active. The issue at hand is co ed schools do both, but drastically limit test scores. Single sex schools sky rocket test scores while still giving the children to engage in co ed behavior after school or off school time. Single sex schools are still the most viable choice.ConclusionThis is sadly a somewhat semantic debate. My adversary has conceded the point that single sex schools offer better grades but contests the meaning of education and says co ed schools are more viableI mean even the core of most definitions behind education are similar to thisEducation - a field of study that deals with the methods and problems of teaching.[1]Other definitions include teaching and imparting knowledge. While you could play semantics about what is being taught and imparted, the prime reason behind school is graduation. If you were to go to school for purely social factors, it would be obsolete. So even if we are forced to prioritize what is more important, grades will always outweigh social factors. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Single sex schools are good for education

This will be brief; I applaud my adversary for their bulletproof argument.I concede that the evidence is there in favour of single-sex schooling when it comes to grade scores, but I reject the view that education stops at facts and figures. I would like to reinstate everything I said in my previous post and contest my adversary's claim that it doesn't apply under the rules of this debate. "Education - The process of teaching someone knowledge and information (in a school)"; knowledge and information goes above and beyond core subjects, as described in my first post. Students need to learn how to apply the information they learn to a mixed society.The layman terms "book smart" and "street smart" are good comparison -- single sex schools offer know knowledge of how men and women function TOGETHER in society, or on the 'streets'. Pupils taught without the opposite gender would find it a lot more difficult to cope in the workplace, and in a male dominated working society, women may feel threatened and men may be more prone to sexual harrassment, having no previous experience working with each other.That is all I have to add on this topic.Conclusion:Single-sex schools have been shown to be beneficial in teaching facts and figures (despite other research claiming the opposite), but does not educate the students about society as a whole. Education is not limited to academic work.
The Bible is a truthful record of the Earth's history

You've ignored almost all of my arguments and questions. Again, I ask you to respond to points one, two, three, and four. To address your other argument, I would much rather listen to scholars and scientists. They devote their lives to determining truths, and back up their theories with evidence. Who told you that God exists? Humans who can lie? Until proven otherwise, "God our creator" is a character from a book written by humans (humans who can lie). The only "evidence" for the existence of the Christian God is the Bible itself. The Bible claims to be true, but does that make it true? No. If I tell you that I am a talking giraffe typing this on a laptop I built out of grass and leaves, does that make me correct? No, it proves nothing. Anybody or anything can claim to be correct, but they will never be correct until they prove them self through physical evidence. If I showed up to your house and you saw that I am indeed a talking giraffe, you would be justified in believing me. The Bible is only a book. While the Bible is an interesting piece of literature, it has no credibility. Where exactly does science say that the universe needs a creator? Please send me a link. Evolution states no such thing; evolution only explains how species change over time due to certain DNA traits giving an organism a better chance to survive and breed. Science can not currently explain how the universe came to be, but the answer may be found some time in the future. I encourage you to read about the theory of evolution; it's some interesting stuff. You never said a single word about the tree, so I'm not sure what you mean by "as I previously stated." http://www.sciencedaily.com... Here, read about the tree. If "no tree could have survived that long", why are there multiple trees older than 6000 years?
The Bible is a truthful record of the Earth's history

I assume you accidentally switched points one and two. 1. I would like to see your evidence of evolution being proven false. Simply stating it doesn't make it true, you must be able to provide some sort of proof. The proof for evolution is in the fossil records, and observations can be made of microevolution taking place in fruit flies, guppies, insects, etc. Here is an additional link to the Smithsonian that better describes the fossil records. http://humanorigins.si.edu... 2. You completely disregarded my argument, I said that modern dating methods have discovered the Earth to be much older than 6000 years. Please address my argument instead of changing the subject. source: http://en.wikipedia.org... As for what you said in the place of an actual argument, it doesn't make much sense. Mountains are formed by colliding and separating tectonic plates, which are constantly moving very slowly. It's a concept taught in Elementary school. Mountains are constantly being formed, and canyons are formed by extremely long periods of erosion. Geographic formations are always changing; they either grow or shrink with time. 3. I have no reason to believe that Noah's ark has been found unless you can show me proof. Please back up your claims with evidence. 4. Again, you ignored my argument. Please address it. And to answer your statement, There does not have to be a creator. Science can not pinpoint where matter originated, but it does offer possible explanations such as the big bang theory. There is no evidence of a "creator" existing. If there was a "creator", where did it come from? As you said, everything must have a creator. So who/what created god?
The Bible is a truthful record of the Earth's history

I believe that the bible is a factually untrue piece of literature. My reasoning is as follows: 1. The widely accepted theory of evolution, (which is backed by undeniable, hard evidence), dispels any notion of our species being created by instantly by a God. 2. Various dating methods (such as carbon dating and ice core dating) have proven that our planet is much older than the bible states it to be. 3. The story of Noah's ark has been proven to be extremely unlikely, if not false, by the lack of any discovery of colossal ark remains. Furthermore, a tree in Sweden has been found to be 9550 years old. It is far older than the date of Noah's flood, so how could a Swedish tree survive a flood sent by God to "destroy all life"? 4. There are thousands of other religions in our world, all of which contradict every other religion. What makes Christianity the one correct religion?
why do car manufactures continue to make cars which use fosil fuels and dont try to find an alternat

Firstly, so you're aware, your argument was stated as a question ergo it'll be very difficult to debate on this topic, but I'll try and answer your question as best I can. 1 - Infrastructure. Currently the entire planet has developed a multi billion pound petroleum refinement, supply and distribution chain, currently no single car manufacturer wants to take the leap and change fuels because they know that making that change would limit their customer base and in turn seriously damage sales. If EVERY car manufacturer changed fuel supply then the big fuel giants such as BP would then be forced to change there market in order to survive but as it stands nobody wants to be the first. 2 - Energy content, The advantage conventional fuels have over many other energy storage methods is the huge amounts of energy contained within petroleum. In fact it's several dozens of times more than can be stored in an lead acid battery of an equal weight. So petroleum is a better storage vessel for energy. 3 - Habits, car makers have become very good at making progressively more and more efficient engines, To make something they know little about would be like starting from scratch. 4 - Speed of refueling, Filling a car with petroleum takes 5 minutes, charging a battery powered car takes several hours if not all night. 5 - Price, the cost of using petrol engines is never going to cost more than it does right now (for the car manufacturers) but changing to an alternative would cost them billions. 6 - Its all the same energy. Asides from nuclear and renewable energy supplies, all other power on earth is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. If you're recharging your new electric car on a night, the chances are you're using power made from burning fossil fuels, for this reason car companies don't see the environmental benefits of switching to an alternative (even hydrogen fuel cells take huge amounts of conventionally produced energy to make) 7 - Safety, You might thinks that petroleum is dangerous but compared with some of the alternatives its really quite safe. for instance its not an oxidizer so it'll only burn with direct exposure to the air. some of the chemicals in modern batteries can burn for a short while, even in a sealed environment The solution. Petroleum companies need to work on a biofuel which needs to fit the following criteria. - It needs to be able to operate on conventional infrastructure and in conventional vehicles (possibly with some slight modifications) - It need to be made from renewable biomass, so perhaps from some kind of fast growing reeds or something (as the plant grows it absorbs the CO2 from the atmosphere which is released as it burns so it'll be CO2 neutral) - it needs to have the same energy content as current fuels Until such a fuel is able to be produced in sufficient quantities to supply the world, we are stuck with rising fuel bills and dangerous pollutants.
Catholicism is fearful of god not joyful

"what are you moron or somethin now you suck sir, how dare you use him as your profile picture, you go to hell and you die", This is called the fallacy of ad hominen, look to it in this debate. He has "crossed" the line, voting issue one, the personal attack and threat. Two Catholics do not fear god, they embrace him. They pray to him for guidance, they do not teach fear. vote for my side please for the vulgarity, my opponent has said to me.
Catholicism is fearful of god not joyful

"you must be confused, I'm trying to say that catholics teach fear of god before love, the idea of doing something right cause a super being is going to shock you with lightning or something is ridiculous. Do something right just cause some ones watching isn't true good will.", I have never heard a priest of a catholic church say god will strike you down with lightning. The idea is that The devil is telling you to do something bad, god is telling you not to. That is the idea, god would not strike you down with lightning just because the devil is influencing you. Infact the reason people die according to scripture or murder is because of the devil. Catholics teach love not hate, why children that go to the church have to go to bible school to learn of the scripture. They don't learn that god will smite them if they do wrong, they learn, everyone may sin, but we must learn to surpress those urges. Fear is not the influence, their is no fear in the catholic church, just some preachers who feel that way. Catholicism teaches the scripture which if you read shows god helping individuals to do the right thing and being rewarded. Take the Book of Job for instance, if you read the whole thing, you would be shocked until the end. Which stated "[Job 1:10; 8:7; James 5:11] The LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; [Job 1:3] and he had 14,000 sheep and 6,000 camels and 1,000 yoke of oxen and 1,000 female donkeys.", If you read God did a lot of things to Job, but the devil did and god made his latter days better than ever before. No scare here, just joy for being good to god. No fear.
Catholicism is fearful of god not joyful

Wait a second, you are saying evangelicals teach god is good and we must respect him. Evangelicals are the ones that say if you are not a evangelical, then you are going to H@#$. Catholics teach about the bible in its entire sense of the word. They teach about the saints and Jesus to focus on. They are very similar in the word, but they don't treat people differently. All in all the Catholic church is more modest than other protestant churches. As I said Evangelicals are the most strict out of all the churhces on the protestant side. Catholics teach the love, just as much as the sin, the have confession as well to clear their sins. Catholicism is very joyful for god, if they live a good life and be a good person, you will be up there with god. Some even say, even if you are with another church they will go to heaven as well. Evangelicals say if you are not a evangelical you will go straight down to H!@#.
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

You said in your round 2 and 4 that "there are individuals all over the world that recycle but there still is those other individuals who wouldn't dare to recycle due to laziness and just not wanting to recycle. The notion of gathering those individuals and getting them to recycle is beyond a government group or individuals spreading the word for people." and "The government should step in and take complete control over recycling because individuals absolutely cannot be responsible for recycling protection, it is beyond an individual!!" but I do disagree with it. Do you remember how human rights could be achieved? For example, women in America could not have right to vote until early 20th century although Amendment XV to U.S. Constitution passed by Congress on February 26, 1869 and ratified on February 3, 1870 stating that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Also, there were tremendous racial discrimination until 1960's. The complete human rights could be accomplished through local grass roots movement and it had been begun by individuals. So, most people who understand how important the recycling is have to take more actions for recycling. They should teach their children home, tell their friends and neighbors, and spread words to people about the importance of recycling. Also, they should state that doing recycling is not only for protection of environment but also it benefits them tremendously in the realty. As I said earlier, if the government involves more than now, it just causes more taxes to be imposed on individuals and businesses. Therefore, I do believe that individuals and businesses are more responsible than government for recycling in these days since government has done its part for recycling.
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

What you are saying is very similar as to what I am saying we just differ because I personally believe that the government should do more to bring recycling to many individuals attention. Yes stores do give credits to customers who bring recyclable bottles and cans but five cents for many people is not much of a concern if the government were to higher the value of bottles and cans than more people would not only be aware, but they would participate in recycling. I also believe that the voucher that individuals receive when they are using the bottle redemption machine, should be cash or coins rather than being a voucher. Most people look forward to fast cash and having money right away, this would also allow people to get more interested in recycling. As you said in your statement above "The main problem is people just do not pitch in and do not recycle garbage" which means you would agree that this was beyond the individual, it's up too the government to implement these laws so that people can take recycling a lot more serious. The government should step in and take complete control over recycling because individuals absolutely cannot be responsible for recycling protection, it is beyond an individual !!
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

There are many or some supermarkets in every town where there are bottle redemption machines. Also, most stores give credit to customers who bring recyclable bottles or cans where there are not bottle redemption machines. The main problem is that people just do not pitch in and do not recycle garbage. Many people dump the recyclable garbage into a garbage can or bag without separating them to recycle. If parent explain to their children why we have to recycle garbage and how to recycle and show them how it is done by demonstration in every day life, they will understand and learn easier and faster. When children and young people see what the adults do, they understand and learn about things a lot more efficiently and a lot more naturally by home education than by governmental education system. There are even many stores where customers can get a credit of 5 cents or 10 cents if the customers bring their own bag instead of taking paper bags for their shopping at stores. Also, there are thousands of sings in public stating that "Think green", "Help keep this area clean", "Pitch in" and "Think, before you print...", etc, but there still are so many people who do not care about recycling. The government has enforced laws, regulations, has posted warnings, and has sent brochures to home owners, apartment dwellers and businesses for recycling. Based on this situation, individuals and businesses are more responsible than government for recycling.
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

As I said in my last round there should be a way that the government establishes a bottle redemption machine so that the youth will see, and understand the importance of recycling. I believe that the government starting with the youth will help change this planet tremendously. The government should brainstorm a little harder and should have more bottle redemption machines in inner cities, in housing projects and around schools. These areas will need the extra five cent a lot more than suburban areas. There should also be more public awareness for this matter that would allow people to want too recycle. Individuals who live in private developments who are required by law who still don't recycle should be penalized the government should educate and regulate. Consumers have no idea of what to do with recycling bottles when it comes too deciding where they get recycled. Most individuals in my opinion would probably prefer a gray and brown world (the color of wood and recycled paper) then having all these flashy colors so that they can rip off flashy colors so that they can rip off the flashy colored package and think to themselves "Wow I should recycle this." The failure of individuals is within how an individual recycles and most individuals do not Recycle. Recycling for most individuals is extinct and non existent. I believe if the government were to work harder on implementing recycling skills things would be a bit different in the recycling world.