BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are Single Sex School benifitual

Being in either school shouldn't make it any easier, or more difficult with others. In the workplace, it would have no effect. Single sex schools are beneficial: Pros: Students can focus and improve more academically -- Students are less likely to be in a relationship, and can focus on grades -- Schools can focus curriculum and appeal to one gender -- Girls have worry less about appearances and social pressures -- Boys and Girls are regularly treated differently in co ed schools (http://www.nea.org...) Cons: Social effects -- Students are not used to speaking with other gender -- Less dating experience What makes learning in a co ed environment distracting is social pressures, gender roles, and dating. Nothing more. Later in life, it will not effect someone's ability to work in a co ed workplace. There is nothing preventing it. The only negative effect would be socially. So really, our question is: Should schools focus more academically, or on social interactions? Any school's primary goal is or should be academic learning. This is definitely most important for college, and getting a profession. So there is no reason for this not to be a priority. More so, developing social skills is the responsibility of the parent, and student, not the school.
Are Single Sex School benifitual

But who would be better in a environment with both genders the girl who grew up around guys her whole life and is used to them or the girl who went to an all girl school she might be more prepare in and educational since but not in a mental since. She would probably be less used to working around guys and therefore would be improperly prepared, and when they get a job what they have to do probably won't be targeted towards there gender and even though school is measured academically it won't help you in later in life as much if you aren't as mentally qualified and not all girls learn the same either what about the girls who don't learn better in this environment they will suffer.
Are Single Sex School benifitual

Same sex schools provide students an environment less distracting, and allows them to focus on their grades. Clearly you agree having said 'if you aren't used to it it will be more distracting.' Also, it allows curriculum to be better targeted towards genders, hence helping students. While a student, these schools are beneficial, and academically prepares them for later in life. A school's main priority is to educate students first, and then prepare them for later in life. Because education is measured academically, and that same sex schools improve academics, a same sex school is beneficial.
Are Single Sex School benifitual

--Students are more likely to give into Gender stereotypes that went to single sex schools http://news.psu.edu... --A 2007 study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health found very little difference between the male and female adolescent brain when it came to learning styles. --Other girls will still pressure each other about clothes --Boys and girls will be treated differently either way There will still be social pressures and gender roles What about places where there isn't a lot to do where you will see the opposite sex unless you go somewhere like a pool and some people don't like to just go up and talk yo someone they don't know especially a guy and especially when they haven't talked to hardly any guys that they aren't related to
God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

Your argument bases strongly on God's ability to break human logic. As I have already stated, if we truly expect God to be omnipotent, then he should be able to do everything we mentioned above with limitations restricted upon him, as I pointed out in my green eggs and ham example. Based on the definition of omniscience, if God cannot possibly do everything I already stated while following human logic and understanding, then he is not omniscient. In simpler words, if God cannot eat "green eggs and ham" while in a "box", then he isn't omniscient. If God was truly omniscient, he'd take on the challenge of opening and closing of a door at the same exact time, as we think of "opening" and "closing" of the door. In conclusion as long as I can prove God unable to do a certain thing under a certain circumstance, he is not omniscient. If we get rid of his advantage in con's arguments-- his ability to go past human logic and understanding-- there is no way for God to be able to do any of these things, under any circumstance, because in paradoxes, things contrast each other and in human logic, there is no way out of these crazy, unfair situations. Because of the definition of omniscience, God must be able to break these paradoxes and follow human logic at the same time, otherwise I have succeeded in showing that God cannot do something, not fitting the definition of omniscience.
God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

Now, if God was truly omnipotent, we'd expect him to be able to do anything-- under ANY circumstance. If God was omnipotent, surely he could eat green eggs and ham in a box, with a fox, in a house, wearing a blouse, in a train, eating brains, all at the same time! So now-- what if we limited God to the logic of humans and the understanding of humans?? Then, all our arguments go down the toilet. As far as humans know, there is no way to both open and not open a door but the same time, neither is there a way for him to not exist and still have power, and there is definitely no way for God to create a curse that is reversible as well as irreversible at the same exact time. Here are three more examples in which God cannot possibly do while following the logic and understanding of humans. 1. The iron ball of doom God creates an immovable, indestructible iron ball of doom which floats in space. He then teleports himself into the iron ball, and then makes the iron ball nullify his powers. All of them. Now, he cannot run to the "end" of the iron ball, because spheres have no end or beginning. [1] Furthermore, he cannot create an end or beginning, since his powers are nullified. Since under limitations, he cannot run to the end of an iron ball he is within, he is shown to have limited powers and is not omnipotent. In addition, he cannot get out of the iron ball. That just shows one more thing he cannot do. 2. Infinity God cannot count to infinity under human logic limitations, if he goes up one by one, counting: 1,2,3,4,5,6..... Etc, etc. God will never ever reach infinity by definition of infinity. [2] Therefore God's powers are limited and he is not omnipotent. 3. The trick question test God takes a test. The test requires him to answer a single question correctly in order to get full score. However, the question states that no matter what God puts as his answer, he will get the question wrong. In this case, there is no loophole or anything around the question. God puts nothing, gets it wrong. God puts everything, gets the question wrong. God copies the question, gets it wrong. God creates an answer, states it is the correct answer, but gets the question wrong. This unfair test gives no chance for anyone, including God, to get a full score, as long as he follows human logic and understanding. The argument if upheld. Your turn, con. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

* shock ripples through the crowd * My, it's the mighty CJK!! Well, time to prove myself a good debater. 1. Paradox number one-- creating a door We will assume that God can create a door. We then can automatically assume he can open the door, right? Yes. But-- what if God makes it so that no one, including himself, can open the door? If he can make this impossible-to-open door, then he cannot open the door and he is not omnipotent. If he can open the thought-to-be-impossible-to-open door, then he cannot create a door which he cannot open, and this demonstrates the limits of his powers, thus, God cannot do everything. 2. Paradox number two--surpassing himself We can assume God can travel back in time. We can also assume he can completely unmake an organism so that it never existed in the first place, and its impacts on the universe is gone. But-- what if he goes back in time and unmakes himself?? Then he could never had gone back in time in the first place! If he could completely destroy his past self and make his further actions null, then he could not have possibly existed in this present time in order to travel back in time in the first place!! If there exist no other beings to interfere with God's crazy plans, then God has successfully made himself unable to do anything. If his past self stopped his present self, then his present self's plan has failed, and he is thus shown in this scene to not be all-powerful, or rather, omnipotent. 3. Paradox number three-- word jumble We can assume that God can make people say things. We can assume he can also force people to say the truth. Now, in this scenario, we will suppose God put an irreversible curse on a person to force him to always speak the truth. But if this curse is truly irreversible, then God cannot reverse it, and thus he is not omniscient. If God can reverse this curse with his mighty powers, then he is shown to be unable to surpass his mighty powers with his supposed "irreversible curse". This is similar to the previous arguments, and prove that either one way or the other, God is not all-powerful, because he is unable to surpass himself either way. Onto you, con.
Christmas v.s. Easter

Pro has forfeited this round. Arguments1. Christmas is fakeChristmas has some fake beliefs. Santa is not actually real. The parents give their child the presents. This shows that christmas is actually fake and is not really the way it is now, joyful and awesome. Christmas was actually an holiday for Jesus, for his birthday. It is not really great after all.However Easter, is the most joyful holiday for the Christans. http://www.popsugar.com...http://www.whychristmas.com...http://www.ministrymatters.com... http://theweek.com...
The government should release Osama bin Laden's death picture

My opponent did not refute my points which I will order for you here: 1. The whole reason not to release photo evidence is a good one, we don't wanna make even more tension between the U.S and those Plane crashing bomb loving wacko's ( yes i know I'll get letters). 2.Then again why does it matter has anything really changed since his death? They still wanna kill us so why does it matter? The governments not obligated to show pictures but to prove it and they did with DNA. Rebut: My opponent only came back with one simple point, we need our people to believe that he is dead. Why? does this change anything? No And he says we should brag about it, but the simple fact is you release a photo to the press it will hit the internet and will offend those plane crashing bomb loving wacko's because surprisingly their cave has DSL. Or simply the photo will be seen by everyone and cause the wacko's to get more angery and angery and they might do something like try to fly a plane again. Not a good picture. My last note: DNA is proof if you don't believe DNA then you would have aquited thousands of murders because you don't believe them you need a photo.
The government should release Osama bin Laden's death picture

Ok, so DNA is most of the time right. But the point is, if Americans won't believe that Osama's dead, you know you need evidence to back it up. So the government should release his photo to the public to prove it once and for all. I'm not saying that we should brag about it, I'm saying that we should prove it to the world. DNA s one thing, but you need photographic evidence. Many governments are known to hide things. The US is no exception. Like, the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Bill Clinton said he "did not have sexual relations" but thats not solid. He could've lied. Presidents and Kings alike have been known to do so. So again, the US should release Osama's death photo. I leave my opponent to rebut
The government should release Osama bin Laden's death picture

Opening statement: I'm sorry but did I miss read or am I delusional or does it really say that DNA testing could be wrong? The probability of DNA testing to be wrong is 0.001 ( 1 in 100,000). The whole reason not to release photo evidence is a good one, we don't wanna make even more tension between the U.S and those Plane crashing bomb loving wacko's ( yes i know I'll get letters). Thats why, its not a conspiracy the reasons are simple; don't make them even more mad than they already are because we don't need it. Yes lets beat a Wookie at chess and then lets brag about it thats not gonna be a bad idea. Then again why does it matter has anything really changed since his death? They still wanna kill us so why does it matter? The governments not obligated to show pictures but to prove it and they did with DNA.
The government should release Osama bin Laden's death picture

On May 2, 2011, The US government authorized a operation to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. The operation was carried by a team of Navy SEALs, who in 38 minutes, stormed bin Laden's compound, killed his guards, then him, then exfiltrated back to the USS Carl Vinson, where, bin Laden was buried according to Muslim tradition by throwing his wrapped body overboard. That night, at 11:40 PM, President Obama announced to the world that Bin laden was dead. But where is the photographic evidence? I know they took a DNA test, but remember, DNA can be wrong. The government should release Osama's death photo. I leave the challenge to whoever accepts
is government responsible for the communicable diseases

Yes they are!http://solutiondown.com...The government has created a new strain of H5N1 Bird flu to kill us all.You may not want to believe it, but you have to, because he's only given me five minutes to write this argument before I'm silenced.It can kill upwards of 50 million people and it was indeed engineered by the feds!WAKE UP AND SMELL THE NEW WORLD ORDER, PEOPLE!!! Pro has not argued anything, I have. Therefore, a vote for Con is obvious.Don't try to troll me with five-minute arguments, you fiend.
Music Composition Battle

http://www.youtube.com... Alright, here's my composition. A low-quality version (highly compressed) can be heard by listening to that YouTube video. For a higher-quality version, go to this link: http://kiwi6.com... (supload was playing up unfortunately). The song is 2:46, including about 4 seconds of intentional silence. I hope you all like it. I spent a marathon four and a half hours writing and arranging it. My speakers aren't really good, so I hope the quality's OK. Principal influences on the song were Hans Zimmer, Gustav Holst and Don Davis. I was trying to write something that makes your heart stop - I don't think I'm dead yet so it didn't work, but I think some sections of this song come pretty close for me. My opponent's theme for this round will be "presidential election".
Music Composition Battle

This debate is similar to the many "who can draw the best picture" or "who can take the best photo" debates on this site. The key difference is that instead of a picture, you have to compose and record an original piece of music. Voters judge based on who wrote the "best" music overall, in the same way you'd judge a better picture. Music can be of any style - rap, pop, classical etc is all allowed. The music should be original, and no music written prior to this competition should be used. Vocals are allowed but not required. Sampling is allowed, so long as the composition remains original. The maximum length for each song is around three minutes. I won't stress about a few seconds, but try to avoid composing a 20-minute overture. Before each round, both debaters must post a theme for the other debater to compose a piece of music about. For example, if the theme is "danger", the lyrics or the music should be evocative of danger in some way. Try to keep the theme generic enough to allow for multiple musical interpretations. The theme need not be abstract like danger ie "mountain" is an ok theme. In the actual debate round, you must post a link to a place where people can either listen to or download your music (in MP3 format if possible - I usually use Supload for this purpose but there's lots of places available). You can add 2000 characters of commentary if you wish. This first round is a rule-stating and opening-theme stating round. Con must NOT post a composition, but rather just give a theme for me to write a piece of music. There are three rounds, so there will be four compositions in total of three minutes each for voters to listen to - meaning voting can be done in just 12 minutes! If there are any questions about the structure, please post them in the comments before accepting. Since I failed my music exams in high school, I expect even the most amateur musicians will be able to beat me, but I'll try my best anyway. Good luck to anybody who takes me on
Music Composition Battle

http://www.youtube.com...And I'm done! Again, you can either listen to the Youtube video or download/listen to the MP3 at http://kiwi6.com.... My opponent indicated in the comments that my theme was "the war in Iraq".I tried to be fairly broad in scope with this piece, covering lots of different aspects of warfare. I also tried to incorporate musical elements from every culture that ever conquered Iraq, to my knowledge. Mostly it's just brass with a somewhat crazy middle-eastern melody inspired by the Iraqi/Palestinian national anthem, but sounding NOTHING like it. Enjoy! The song is 3:01 in length, I was going to cut it at 3:00 but it sounded odd for some reason.My opponent's final theme will be "teddy bear".
Speed Debate: Communism

So in conclusion you have not addressed communism but rather state capitalism. This is understandable because most Leninist regimes liked to call themselves communist despite having the least communist principles it is possible to imagine but in reality communism is very different from what you think it is. My points of the benefits of communism still stand that being that it increases productivity and efficiency as well as providing a much more democratic (as in a commune everything must be decided through direct democracy) and freer system where the lack of poverty massively reduces anti social behaviour and creates a better world for all (even the bourgeoisie). And now I"ve seen your most recent argument I"ll address that. I did see your definition but I disagree with it as it is not at all representative of what communism actually is, you merely reflect the opinion of the soviet government which liked to portray itself as friendly towards the workers.
Speed Debate: Communism

I'm getting confused here. You more or less have denied my definition for the debate, although I did add it on my first argument. I don't know what to do here. I guess I should continue arguing? ...? That wasn't my entire argument, but I feel as if you might reject my other points, too, because of our disagreement. So, I guess, I am seceding? I realize that it's my fault you didn't see my definition at first, and I willingly take full blame for that. But here I am at less than eight minutes left and wondering if it's really worth it to continue with my original points. So... yeah. I'm interested to see how the voting will turn out.
Speed Debate: Communism

I'm not sure if what you are talking about defies the definition I gave, but I'll just assume it doesn't because I have such little time. Productivity Benefit When the workers truly do want to support the community, then it works, but when they don't, it fails horribly. Think of what happened in Europe with all the starvation and poor life. I am not saying that community-mind, for lack of a better term, can't be accomplished, but I'm saying that it can be very difficult when not dealing with just a small amount of people without being very strict, which is a downfall. Efficiency This is true, but without the spirit of competition, there is not much incentive to work hard. Just work enough, get your pay, and repeat. Again, I am not saying that the workers can't all be motivated to work for the community, but it can be very hard with many people, which is what a government wants, usually. Wage Slavery I'm not sure I understand what point you are making. Actually, I have no idea what you are saying. I know this looks bad on me, but I have no clue. Are you talking about the hard work needed to get pay? Even in Communism, if you want to have a successful business system, you need to have hard workers. The workers will need to work hard to contribute well to the community. My point here is that with many people, it is very hard to create a "community feeling", again for lack of a better term. You can try enforcing it with very strict dictator-like rulership, but that has many, many downsides on its own.
Speed Debate: Communism

A Few Misconceptions DebunkedCommunism is not what most people think it is. Communism was not enacted under the USSR and no attempt to enact it was made after 1921 when the only community to have ever achieved communism (other than Catalonia in 1936) in a modern industrial society was destroyed by the USSR.Communism does not mean a totalitarian state quite the contrary in fact the communism envisioned by Marx is a stateless anarchist society, this is why no state can claim to be communism because if that state was communist it would not exist.Many people claim that communism can never work, the simple response to this is that it has, it has worked in Catalonia in the 1930s and it has worked in Ukraine from 1918 to 1921. Communism is also shown in almost every hunter-gather people, the best examples of this are found in the polar regions of Canada, Scandinavia and Russia.What Communism IsCommunism is an economic system in which the participants of the community own the means of production and each worker works not for the benefit of themselves but of the community as a whole. In communism the resources are allocated through workplace democracy (in the anarchist tradition I follow this democracy works through consensus democracy though other traditions do this differently).Productivity BenefitUnder collective governance the output of the workers is increased, this is a fairly moderate but still existent.Efficiency Under communism resources can be more efficiently allocated as unlike with other systems wealth does not get squirreled away and placed in off shore bank accounts. There is also no reason to take longer with projects for financial gain and it has been shown that in a self managed workplace creativity in solution creation increases also increasing productivity.Wage Slavery*Under practically any other system wealth is extracted from the workers via a surplus. This means that the worker spends a certain amount of time working when they do not receive the benefits from that work. In other words under a non-communist system if you do not own the means of production then you must spend time working while not being paid. People are also forced into waged jobs because under any other system (except some non-communist socialist ones) you have no other option.*Disclaimer: Because I used the word slavery does not mean I am comparing capitalism to slavery.