BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
why is public school not getting enough opertunitys

i believe that public schools are not getting enough books and enough opportunity to excel like in my school which is a public school if we do something that worth rewarding then we will never get recognized for it...but if a school that the majority is white....they will get front paper in the new before they even realize what we did....like recant, my school had a a big fight that went way out of control and people got hurt and bruised go 20 seconds on the new..so u may realize that know will ever realize that our school is in major help in the school master men, A little altercation happen in the new..they got top story..and that only because mayor nutter daughter goes there and i rally don't think that is fair.
a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time

It seems that my opponent is not getting the logical of this ("his") debate. Your title of the debate said "in our lifetime" meaning, as long we are to live. This debate isn't on weather it is happening right now as you are using "no indicators" but weather it is likely or not to happen in our lifetime. So your title of this debate is speaking future wise, not present. Let me bring you back to the definition of a civil war: A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1] It does not essentially has to be a war between the north and the south, or bob vs. john. It could simply start by a small group of people whom are armed, whom are wanting change. Your bob and john isn't right, the civil war could be between the East, West, North, or South. So forget about that concept. Simply because you claim, or think there aren't indications does not mean "war is not likely." And I have given you numerous indications. If you read what I wrote and followed some of the links I have given you, you would have seen some of the indications (riots, petition to succeed, government becoming corrupt, suffering), even though are not strong yet to constitute a need for a civil war, as wars aren't a mere thing, but one that cause great loss. Nevertheless, it does not mean a civil war isn't likely, as you have indicated the title "in our life time", which essentially mean forever in our existence. You cannot determine what will happen in human existence, only time will tell. I look forward to my opponent reply.
a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time

con continues as i said in my last post. he even says "there's no indications of it happening right now. But it could happen and we could fall into a civil war." con does give an interesting idea of the war being between teh people and the government, but it would be very shady geographically cause it is still esssnetially bob v john, not north v south. and yes this is a 'likely' debate, a matter of probability. con has given no indicators, i argued there are no indicators, and con even agreed with me that thete aren't any. that means as of now war is not 'likely'. that means i win the debate. all con has ever offered is speculation.
a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time

Yes, I give possible causes for a future civil war, to determine its possibility. It does not mean that because I'm giving possibilities doesn't me it cannot happen; my possible causes could be a reason for a future civil war to happen just like our first civil war. I cannot give specific indicators of it happening, because no one give indicators of the first civil war happening. People determine its possibility due to slavery and states right, and people knew for change to come and to keep the nation together, war was necessary. This could be the same today, with many of the issue were facing such as debts, government becoming corrupt, gap between rich and poor is getting wider, college cost is going on, privacy rights are being violated, people somewhere in America may be thinking of a need for change. Like I said, it only starts with a small group of people, with good motivates, to start this. My opponent pretty much lose its debate saying "he gives no specific indicators of it happening." I believe the debate title says... "a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time." By using the word "likely" he's indicating a possibility, so its wrong of him to say that I'm only making speculation, as he himself is also making speculation that a "civil war "isn't" likely." We do not need to be peace, to think that a civil war isn't likely. For all I know, the United States was at peace, before problems starting arising, which led to the first civil civil war. This could be the same today. I will like to come to my opponent statement: " being bob against john." I'm indicating my opponent is talking about our government. I'll like to say government is not the solution, it is the problem. They are the one causing some of the issues, and most of them are not being impacted by the issues directly. It's the normal everyday people who are facing these issues, whom may want change and will rebel against its government. So this is more so of a "people vs. governments." I could give you a way a geographic power would develop but you're the one saying "con mostly just gives some possible causes for a future war." By me giving how a geographic power would develop, I'm also giving a "possible" cause for the war. Am I not? Both your points are contrary, you're saying I'm giving "possible causes for a future civil war and saying anything is possible, he gives no specific indicators of it happening other than speculation", yet you want me to give a way a geographic power would develop. This could also be a possible cause of the civil war, and could also be a "anything is possible" and if I give a way a geographic power would develop, I will only also be making a speculation too, because like you said, "he gives no specific indicators of it happening", same with no geographic power is developing, there's no indications of it happening right now. But it could happen and we could fall into a civil war. I do not like wars, but its possibilities of it happening is endless, and its surely not good. I look forward to my opponent reply.
Is Indian Education System Is Justified

Now, since I am Pro, I will define the topic that we will be debating. I am stating that the Indian Education System in question is the American system and that we will not be debating the Canadian system. Also, by justified, we will be debating whether the resources put into the system is worth the outcome. As well, since there is no such system, we will be talking about Natives IN the American Education system. Thank you and good luck. Now, I will begin my statements by saying my stance on the subject, then talking to you about my points. I strongly believe that the Indian Education System is justified, for the following reasons: By teaching the Natives we are giving them the tools to get into a post-secondary school of their choice, which the tuition fees help pay for better schooling for everyone. While we can get a lot of sustenance from just people of a European background, many natives have been attending college, giving our schools even more funding. Next, I am not trying to be rude, but Americans are not viewed as treating the First Nations very well. But, when we teach the Natives it sheds a better light on America. This gives them a better chance to have shipping and trading with other countries. If a country is willing to pay top dollar for some oil, but values it's native peoples very much, they are more likely to buy from another country if America looks like it treats its natives poorly. Finally, there have been some very successful Native Americans, such as Philip Martin and Joe Shirley. If these men had not received a proper education, they would surely have not been as successful. There are some Natives that have the potential to be great politicians and diplomats, but will never get the chance to if they have no or little education. This is why I believe that the Native Education System is justified.
People who are against abortion are anti choice, not "pro life"

This is always a fun lesson to 'educate people on', let's Begin this dance. I will begin the first round be responding to a few of your beginning points. - I do hope you have more points and haven't laid out your entire argument in the first round. Pro-Life........... when is a baby Alive?? "most scientists and researchers, actual life begins at birth" - Perhaps life does in the sense of a new journey, but does that mean it wasn't alive before being born. Is the gift of life something your doctor gives the child and not the parents? lets talk about even after your born _ what qualifies you as being alive in your 20's? is it a beating heart? is it the ability to experience pain? is it the fact you have a brain? 4 weeks after conception the fetus develops the beginning of its neural tube and spine - a level of neural activity equivalent to a slug _ but slugs are called alive (- o -) at the same time the heart has slightly formed and begun to beat. - sadly two-thirds of abortions reported in the united states occurs 6 weeks after conception, granted the science claims that fetuses only begin to develop pain responses 27 weeks into gestation and only about 1% of women are able to get an abortion at this stage. "restrict a woman's right to choose what they do with their pregnancy and body" - I will concede that telling a woman what to do with her own body is absurd, however a fetus is not, in fact, a part of the mothers body, from the moment it started out as an egg floating out of her ovaries, it would be silly to say that an egg laid by a bird is still a part of its 'body', and if your uncomfortable comparing memals to birds CONSIDER THE PLATAPUS. and even while the blastocyte merges with the mothers utteran lining it doesn't 'become a part of her body...'again' it now feeds on the nutrients in her blood more like a parasite (or symbiote, some studies have found that an incubating child can even donate white blood cells to the mother for fighting off viruses). In fact, the most fundamental proof that it never was is the fact a part of her is that it is genetically unique from the mother [Similar I grant you] but not the same, only half and you can thank the father for that _ right from the moment his sperms penetrated her egg (The beginning basically)
People who are against abortion are anti choice, not "pro life"

I will argue that people who are against abortion are anti choice, not pro life, and my opponent will argue that they are pro life, not anti choice. People who are "pro life", are actually anti choice, because according to most scientists and researchers, actual life begins at birth, not conception. Fetuses can"t feel any pain during abortions, nor are they at all aware of their surroundings or what is happening. If sperm aren"t humans, and killing them isn"t morally wrong, then why is aborting a fetus wrong? Anyway, unwanted babies often have terrible lives after birth, so an abortion would be better for both the mother and the child. Using this arguement, I will say that people who claim to be pro life are actually anti choice, because all they want to do is restrict a womans right to choose what they do with their pregancy and body. I will wait for my opponent to respond to this claim with their counter arguement.
legalization of child abuse

My opponent, being both instigator and pro, has the burden of proof. He must prove that child abuse should be legalized. Since he has offered no arguments, I have nothing to negate. My opponent has failed to provide definitions. Whatever definitions I provide, as long as they are reasonable, are the only definitions that can be used in the debate: Child: a minor dependent upon one or more parents Abuse: Improper or excessive use or treatment, also physical maltreatment [1]. Legalize: to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to [2]. Child abuse is thusly defined, given the above definitions, as such: The improper or excessive use or infliction of physical force upon a minor dependent by a parent. My Case: My opponent has not specified in what country the resolution is supposed to be carried out. Since there is no world government, there is no way to fulfill the resolution, as without a world legal body there is no way to legalize child abuse humanity-wide. Secondly, my opponent would violate human rights offenses. The US Bill of Rights is the foundation for most modern ideas of human rights. Within this Bill of Rights, it says thus, "...nor cruel and unusual punishments [shall be] inflicted."[3] Since child abuse by definition must be both cruel and unusual, it violates the Bill of Rights. Child abuse also violates Article 5 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." [4] To uphold child abuse is to uphold flagrant violations of human rights. On what my opponent said: "child [sic] abuse are [sic] usually for child [sic] who doesn't listen to heir [sic] parents." My opponent provides no reasoning or proof for this statement. Also, even if this is true, it does not constitute a valid reason to legalize child abuse. "In my opinion child abuse should allowed." We don't care what your opinion is. The only way of weighing beliefs is by rational argumentation. Please provide this next round. Sources: [1]: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary-http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary-http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]: The Constitution of the United States of America-http://www.usconstitution.net... [4]: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights-http://www.un.org...
Atheism (Con) vs. The Existence of God (Pro)

Atheism vs. The Existence of God I will be taking the 'Con' side of this debate and shall be taking the 'Atheism' stance. My opponent, however, will be taking the 'Pro' side of this debate and shall be taking the 'Theism' stance. Round One: Acceptance only. Round Two: The Instigator and Contender will state their arguments. There will be no rebuttals until round three. Round Three: This round is for rebuttals and any extra arguments one wishes to make. Round Four: This round shall be the last round. It will be for any last rebuttals either the Instigator or Contender wishes to make. Rules: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all time. 2. If any sources are used, all sources must be correctly cited using MLA format. 3. Arguments should be sophisticated and relevant. 4. This debate must be mature. I look forward to a mature and informative debate.
Barack Obama is a Muslim

politifact sources all have "pants on fire" as their most extreme complete blatant falsehood. So every source you cite to poltifact as well as your first source is invalid. all of your posts about inconsistancy about whether he is a christian. I don't even need to validate those because that does not prove he is a muslim. Only inconsistent about being a christian. he doesn't want any religion slandered, that does not make him a muslim. he points out why the bible should not be used as a law making book. that does not make him a muslim. then you cite to a ring citing deviant art. does not make him a muslim. you have yet to propose any real argument.
Barack Obama is a Muslim

Con: "you bear the burden of proof." And by Con's own assessment he is extremely behind and has a lot of ground to make up. He rejects one source as a rebuttle, yet rebuttles no other arguments by any others sources.(All but the one in the first round) Con declares the burden of proof is on me. I have offered proof upon proof without Con's rebuttle. If one were scoring points, it's about 40-0 at this point. * This is a partial list of known Muslims in the Obama administration. * Abedin, Huma * Abunimah, Ali * Al-Hibri, Azizah * Al-Mansour, Khalid Abdullah Tariq * Al-Marayati, Salam * Alikhan, Areef * Asbahi, Mazen * Elibiary, Mohamed * Husaini, Minha * Hussain, Rashad * Khalidi, Rashid * Magid, Mohamed * Mattson, Ingrid * Mogahed, Dalia * Obama, Abon'go Malik * Patel, Eboo * Said, Edward * Shora, Kareem * Shora, Nawar - MORE POINTS- Obama's own half brother has stated that Barack "has not been honest about who he really is." http://pagesix.com... - Obama's half brother IS a Muslim. He has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. http://mobile.wnd.com... * In this link, his brother holds up a picture of a Barack Obama as a fully grown man in Muslim attire. http://mobile.wnd.com... * According to Walid Shoebat, former PLO, Islamist, Obama gave the Islamic hand sign to Muslim delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington. http://shoebat.com... * Con has reviewed the information, has no argument or defense against any of it, and apparently has retreated.
Barack Obama is a Muslim

you bear the burden of proof. by me stating that you sources are incorrect or actually goes against what you are saying (you cite to politfact that calls your argument "pants of fire" the worst on its lying scale) I show that you have no argument. If I state that the moon is made of cheese, and I cite to a source that states that the moon is not made of cheese, you do not need to rebut it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Society is getting worse, and worse. And there's nothing we can do to prevent it.

Thanks for the topic, have fun! =) Your resolution has two parts. This can be seen by the conjunction "and". However since the conjunction "and" is used and not "or" you must uphold both sides of your resolution else it falls. For instance if I prove to you that our society is getting better and better then the statement, "Society is getting worse, and worse. And there's nothing we can do to prevent it." becomes false. However I am going to instead going to disprove the second half of your resolution. Definition: Society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. Thus I am coincidentally a member of "Society" and ironically being a member there are things I can do to prevent it from getting worse. Thus my case at this point is as follows: I occasionally help people and I am a pacifist. Both of these things have prevented society, if only for a brief moment, from becoming worse and worse. Me not being a pacifist and not helping people would lead me to such things as becoming a criminal, maybe murder, or even lead me into wars. These things would make our society worse, thus I have prevented our society, even in a small way from becoming worse. The second part of my case is this. We create police forces, governments, and international agencies to attempt to stem the three things you listed as corrupting our society. And no, they do not always succeed. We have seen wars, murders, and crime, however they still do, at time, have an effect. So, unless you can prove to me that these bodies have never prevented a war, never stopped a murder, and never prevented any form of crime; then all three of these bodies have stopped our society at one point or another from becoming worse and worse. Thus there are things we can do to prevent our society from becoming "worse and worse". Thanks.
Democracy & Gerrymandering

I accept the challenge. But I disagree with your opinion on this motion. Definiton: DEMOCRACY.1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives 2. A state governed in such a way WikipediaDictionary.com Answers.comMerriam-Webster. GERRYMANDERING:1. Manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class 2. Achieve (a result) by such manipulation. Based on this definition, I will say that my opponent's view is faulty. His logic failed upon when he said that american politicians influence election because he didnt give any source. America as the world power, is a democratic state with law makers and electoral bodies that crown the events of election during election period. So my opponent laying that fallacy, it is awkward.
Democracy & Gerrymandering

America is a republic which has representatives who are democratically elected to represent the people of their geographical region. However, because politicians use gerrymandering, voting results do not always represent the majority of people in a region and make a "community of common intrest."(Washington Redistricting Video) This has a negative impact on our democracy politicians have a bigger influence on who gets elected and which legislation gets passed. Gerrymandering is used by politicians to benefit the political party in power. The people in power, who are in charge of drawing voting areas, could be in the minority. The minority are afraid they will be out-voted. They change the districts to split the number of people who have an opposing opinion. Politicians use it to manipulate the votes so they can win what they want. According the Long Island Minority Video, gerrymandering "makes it hard for minorities to speak with one voice." While the party in power likes gerrymandering, it is judged negatively by the opposing viewpoint or political party. Because the voting districts are split up, the election results do not truly represent the people who live in a community. It is unfair to the people who are not in power because their opinions are not represented. It has the effect of having a one-party rule by silencing different opinions. In the long run, gerrymandering hurts both political parties. No one party is in power all the time. When the opposition gets elected, they can turn around and use gerrymandering for what they want. It makes all politicians look like crooks. Gerrymandering serves the politicians" interests and not the people"s.
Romance is the best genre

I choose history. For many I know this is boring, but this has its benefits. It helps you understand your past, and know how to prevent the bad parts of it. So it helps you avoid it, a.k.a. learn from you mistakes. Knowing history helps you understand civilization. Without some basic knowledge of civilization you know nothing about modern day society. Modern society originated from the beginning, what we call society today is an upgraded form of the 1940s, obviously heavily evolved. It also helps us understand modern prejudices and other thoughts. Although history doesn't let us predict the future, but it increases our awareness. Lets say Joe knew a lot of history, he saw something happening on TV. People where maybe doing things that cause violence towards themselves, he would know know to do that because these people are doing it and being hurt, and his history book already has stuff like that in it. So it increases intelligence overall. History is the best teacher. "Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft." Winston Churchill "We are not makers of history. We are made by history." Martin Luther King, Jr. As I said before, I'm not saying reading history is fun (unless your me) but it is better then romance because when you learn history you learn other things to as stated above. So history = knowledge, history= learning. Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com... Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com... http://www.pickthebrain.com...
Abortion for rape victims.

31 states deny the rape victim's right to choose adoption with her rapist's consent, yet morally committed ideologues say to choose adoption. Emergency contraceptive rights are under attack by conservatives, forcing the victim to coparent with a rapist an unwanted child, hand her baby over to the state or the rapist's fasmily, or have an abortion she may not want. I was raped when I was 22, and I would rather be the the mother of a dead baby than hand my baby over to a rapist. No choice is antichoice.