BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Psychics are Frauds

A psychic is a person who claims to have an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or who is said by others to have such abilities.In 1988, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject and concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years, for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."There are several techniques used by self-described psychics to give the illusion that they do indeed, have psychic abilities. They include: prestidigitation, cold reading, and hot reading. Prestidigitation is also known as "Sleight of hand" and is used by magicians to manipulate objects such as cards.Cold Reading consists of analyzing a person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc., in order to quickly obtain a great deal of information about the person they are trying to convince. These techniques convince people that the reader knows much more about them than they actually do.Hot Reading is just getting personal information about a person before meeting them in person. This can be done on the internetby use of collaborators who work for the "psychic".By using these three techniques, it can become very easy for an experienced user of these techniques to convince somebodythat they are indeed "psychic". Many psychics prey upon people who have recently lost loved ones and have a desire to communicate with them. Their desire and emotional state of mind, makes them very susceptible to gullibility. The scientific community does not have sufficiently verified evidence for scientific acceptance, and there exist many non-paranormal alternative explanations for claimed instances of psychic events.In conclusion, it would be fair to say that all psychics are frauds.
Single-sex schools are better for education

====Rebuttals==== My opponent's sole premise revolves around him and his friends preferring the idea of co-ed schools. This is irrelevant. Just because my opponent and a few of his friends wanted girlfriends does not justify the hindrance of boys' education, nor does it negate any of my other cases; if anything it proves my point. Girls being close-by distracted them from their education, which is why boys and girls schools should be far away. My opponent and his friends could have easily met with the girls after school, or get acquainted with them through social networking. It was their choice (and the wrong choice) to ditch school to talk to them. They could have joined a club, as another example. Imagine how distracted from your schoolwork you would have been if they were in the same CLASS as you. Teenage horniness does not justify hindering the education of our youth. End of story. ====Closing Statements==== I will now strengthen and summarize my points: 1. The sexes provide too much distraction to each other, as evidenced by Con's personal experience. This hinders their education greatly. 2. We do not live in a utopia society. As disheartening as it is, it is unlikely the genders will help each other significantly. Their brains, on average, work differently, and as a result, they need different environments to be successful. Because they are mixed, the overall education of the children ultimately suffer. Teachers encourage talking out feelings, sitting still, not moving around except in elective courses. This screws over most boys. 3. Lastly, boys in particular are hindered. Girls mature quickly, have less learning disabilities, and are in an environment that is suited to their natural learning styles, unlike boys. This is likely why boys have a higher dropout rate. ====Sources==== http://www.singlesexschools.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.infoplease.com...
Single-sex schools are better for education

This being the last round, I shall just present rebuttals and closing statements.C1: My anecdote completely negates Pros case stating that 'Boys and girls often pose a distraction to one another.' Well be it a same-sex school, the 'need' to have a girlfriend/boyfriend is just greater in case of students from single gender schools. I, stand a personal testament to this, with my more than occasional trips down the road to the Girl's School. Its the genreal consensus that Co-Ed schools are more preferable.[1]C2: Coed schools provide opportunities for girls and boys to interact together meaningfully as they learn. What girls dont understand boys can explain and vice versa.Co-Ed leads to a healthier learning environment. They learn to respect one another and cooperate as equals. Coed schools can offer both boys and girls a more extensive range of extracurricular activities where they can either participate separately or together. Also Pro provides no citation for his/her claim that 'Boys and girls have brains that LITERALLY work differently About 80% boys and girls learn the same way. [2]
Single-sex schools are better for education

Thanks Con, I look forward to it. =====My Case==== =C1: Distraction= Boys and girls often pose a distraction to one another. As they are actively trying get a boyfriend or girlfriend, they, as a result, pay less attention to their schoolwork. This results in preoccupied and unfocused students. I, from personal experience, have witness boyfriends and girlfriends ditching school together, not doing their homework to make out, etc., and frankly, it is disturbing that they prioritize such things above schoolwork. However, nothing else should be expected from adolescents. =C2: Different Learning Styles= Boys and girls have brains that LITERALLY work differently. For example, if you were to look at a kindergarten classroom with just boys, and a kindergarten class with just girls, it is quite astounding at how different the children generally act. Boys have to move around, make noises, and cannot sit still for as long as girls. Little girls, however, are a different story, and can generally behave better. Such an age is a critical time of brain and developmental growth in both boys and girls. Each child needs to be catered to in the way that's most beneficial for the CHILD, or else the child will suffer academically and mentally. Separating the genders will help minimize many problems. Differences, though subtle, continue into teenhood. In fact, academic differences are still there, likely due to co-ed mixing, which hinders a child's growth from the start. (ESPECIALLY from the start). Girls, on average, perform better overall in school. This helps me lead into my final contention. =C3: Hinders Boys= Co-ed mixing hinders boys from an early age for a plethora of reasons. The education system, in general, caters to girls: you are taught to sit still in school, boys are more prone to learning disabilities, girls mature quicker, and so on. With all these disadvantages, it's not wonder girls soar in school when girls are taught in the way best for girls, but boys aren't.
Single-sex schools are better for education

I am really sorry for the forfeiture. The irony here being my demands of there being no forfeitures. Anyway please ignore round one voters so that we may have a competitive debate. I thank Pro for being benevolent and generous enough to pass the round and I shall with no further delay start.I would want to start by recalling an incident that involved me. Being from a boy's school I have always been envious of students from co-ed schools where EVERYONE had a girlfriend. In the eyes of an adolescent having a girlfriend was more of a social status than a companion. Well, I couldn't have one. So what me and my other friends used to do was bunk class and roam around the girl's school down the street hoping to catch a few guilty glimpse and maybe if we're lucky, interact with someone. Childish? Well, what else could we do? School is possibly the only place where you can meet girls. [ Not taking into account guys who message girls on Facebook 'add me bby m blcked' ] The entire point of this anecdote was to remind everyone that, you have done it and so have I. Interaction with the opposite sex will be a 'distraction' from studies depending on whose perspective it is. You're always going to find ways to interact with the opposite sex in your entire school life. It is the reality of the world. You will always be in an environment that is both male and female and Co-Ed schools indirectly prepare you on communicating with the opposite sexWell due to time constraints due to reasons stated in the comments, I cannot state few facts that I had intended to. So that'll be in the next roundOver to you Pro.I await your rebuttals and arguments
Single-sex schools are better for education

Wow, I am disappointed. To be fair, I will pass this round in hopes that my opponent doesn't forfeit again. In the case that he DOES respond next round, round three will be our argumentation, while round four will be rebuttals and closing statements. If my opponent chooses to post arguments next round, disregard this round, voters. If he forfeits one more, that should prove as a concession from Con and mean an automatic win for me. With that, I hand this back to my opponent, who hopefully does not forfeit again. Good luck, Con.
Single-sex schools are better for education

I accept to the terms of this debate, and promise I will not forfeit any rounds so long as my opponent extends the favor. I will be affirming that single-sex schools are, on balance, more beneficial than co-ed environments. My opponent will be negating my case. Single-sex ed schools - learning environments with exclusively one biological sex. Co-ed schools - learning environments with both biological sexes. Normally, since I am arguing against what the status quo usually is, and the fact that I am affirming, I would have BOP and would usually start first. However, my opponent has stated I have to make introductory statement, so that means I will be very brief for the sake of fairness for my opponent. Since I am not really actually arguing my case in this first round as per my opponent's request, I proclaim that he is allowed to rebut my case in round two in the final round, while I do my rebutting in round two, as we both have one round of argumentation and one round of rebutting that way. I will make core arguments that revolve around the following: the opposite sex generally poses as a distraction in the classroom, in early ages boys and girls are developing differently so a different learning environment is a must, and that boys and girls have different strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles. However, if character limits allow, I may add more argumentation and will elaborate on these points, since this round is only an introduction. Thanks for the opportunity, Con.
Single-sex schools are better for education

The motion for this debate is: Single-sex schools are better for education than co-educational schools. I shall be debating against the motion and defend my view that Co-Ed Schools are actually better for education. This debate has 30 minutes to prepare for your next argument so,PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THE REQUEST IF YOU CANNOT BE ONLINE AND WILL FORFEIT YOUR ROUNDS. R1: Introductory statement by ProR2-R3: Additional arguments and Rebuttals. R4: Closing statements. Any additional arguments made in round 5 will have no bearing in this debate and must be ignored by the voters. I hope that this will be a healthy debate.
iOS is better than Android

Alright plebeian, let's go. So, here are my arguments Arguments: -iOS is more user friendly. There is no way to prove this per say, but it is immediately obvious when you consider the fact that in order to help you understand how to use a Galaxy S4, Best Buy has Basic training courses it offers. This just is a glimmer as to how un intuitive Android is -iOS has a higher adoption rate when new versions are released. To show this is an article: http://9to5mac.com... -iOS supports 64 bit processors. Android doesn't. -iOS is more tuned to the phones it runs on as the company that makes the software also makes the hardware "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware" - Alan Kay -iOS apps only need to support 4 major screen sizes (3.5,4, iPad mini, iPad). Android apps need to support thousands of screen sizes Have fun countering these arguments. -Steve Jobs
The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy

Tax cuts will pay for themselves/Tax hikes will reduce revenue:My opponent restates his argument from round one that tax cuts will pay for themselves through increased revenue. This is the idea behind the Laffer curve: that as tax rates increase the amount of taxes can collected can decrease due to decreases in poductivity. The maximum on the laffer curve is the tax rate at which the largest amount of tax revenue is achieved, taking into account my opponents point. I adressed this by citing both a study on the Laffer curve and current tax rates to show that we are not yet at that point. In other words, increasing tax rates at this point will still increase revenue, while decreasing tax rates will still decrease revenue. In order for a decrease in tax rates to ellicit an increase in tax revenues we would have to have a tax rate higher than the maximising revenue point, which we do not by any metric that I could find. The argument that increased tax rates would lower revenue is debunked in the same manner.Estimate on the maximising revenue point: http://www.sciencedirect.com...Current rates: http://www.sciencedirect.com...Past decreases in tax rates lead to economic expansion:This point is not in contention. My point is that debt, if allowed to grow, will stifle such expansion by consuming an ever increasing section of GDP as interest. I have also shown that my opponent's arguments about the relationhip between tax rates and tax revenues to be specious. Unless he can present a credible study which estimates the maximising revenue point at a level lower than current tax rates, or somehow debunks the validity of the laffer curve in a way which supports his argument then he has failed to address my main point.Spending cuts alone would suffice:To simply stop the debt from growing would require about $1,200,000,000,000 ($1.2 trillion) in cuts. This amounts to 35% of all federal spending, and is required just to break even. The IMF recommends a 35% reduction in spending coupled with a 35% increase in taxes. Not only does this actually have chance of getting passed in congress, it spreads the damage across a wider area instead of focusing it only on the public sector, as spending cuts would.http://www.imf.org...
The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy

Let me rebut each of your arguments one by one. My oppenent's arguments are in bold.Cutting taxes for everyone would make sense if we weren't in over $16 trillion in debtThe government should significantly cut taxes but also significantly cut spending and close loopholes and deductions for the wealthy. This way the tax cuts will not add to the deficit and the revenue will increase once people spend more money busineeses make more money and hire more employees. At first when taxes are cut the revenue will decarese immediately. Once the economy starts improving the revenue will start to increase and the tax cut will eventually pay for itself. The government should raise some short term revenue by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. If the government cuts taxes and cuts spending significantly then the deficit will not increase.The first priority should be reducing the deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikesThe government ought to reduce the deficit by significantly cutting spending but they should not raise taxes at all. The problem with raising taxes is it hurts the economy. If taxes are raised then people will have less money, they will spend less and businesses will make less money because people won't spend as much money. If busineeses make less money than they will pay less tax dollars so the revenue start to decrease. If businesses make less money they will also lay off employees. Tax hikes only raise revenue short term. Another thing I want to point out is that tax cuts have improved th economy in the past. Ronald reagan significantly cut taxes and the economy improved. Unemployment was 7.5 percent when reagan first took office and it went down to 5.3 percent by the end of his presidency. Bill Clinton cut taxes in 1997 and the economy was prosperous by the end of his presidency and there was a budget surplus. George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and the economy improved but it eventually declined because of the housing market collapse. Some of the tax cuts that improved the economy added to the deficit because the government did cut spending enough to make up for the tax cut that's why tax cuts need to be implemented wiith spending cuts and some short term revenue.Conclusion Tax hikes kill jobs. If the government raises taxes on anyone including the rich then businesses will make less money and will lay off employees. The best way to deal with the deficit is to cut taxes and government spending significantly.Sources: http://data.bls.gov...
The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy

I argue that my opponent's argument would make sense if we weren't over 16 trillion dollars in dept. [1] The first priority should be reducing that debt through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes. While my opponent argues that raising the tax rates further would decrease productivity, the lowest revenue-maximizing rate estimate is between 32.67% and 35.21%. [2] Current total effective tax rates lie at around 23.9%, so there is still plenty of room for an increase. [3] Considering that the interest on the federal debt is now the fifth largest budget expidenture, coming in at about $265 billion [1], and that it is expected to rise to almost $1 trillion by 2022 [4], it seems prudent to minimize it as quickly as possible.1. http://www.usdebtclock.org... 2. http://www.sciencedirect.com...3. http://www.cbo.gov...4. http://money.cnn.com...
The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy

The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy so people will have more money, people will spend more, businesses will make more money and pay more tax dollars. A large percentage of businesses pay income tax at the individual tax rate not the corporate tax rate. If income taxes get cut then the businesses that pay the individual income tax rate will have more money and hire more employees. Corporate taxes should also get cut to 25 percent so that businesses will hire more employees. If businesses make more money and pay more tax dollars then the government revenue will increase. If businesses hire more employees then there will be more taxpayers which will also increase the government revenue. The wealthy should get a large tax cut because a lot of them own businesses. If they get a tax cut then they will spend more money, make more investments and hire more employees.
Lebron James has is/been a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.

You made some interesting points in round 2 but you are giving reasons to why Kobe is inferior to Lebron 1. Kobe does not make players around him better 2. He would not be a good fit for many teams Those reasons matter in being a good basketball player. We are not talking about who is a better 1 on 1 player , who has more confidence, we are talking about who is the better basketball player. And that is someone that gives your team the best chances of winning and has the individual game as well. Now lets look at your two points you started round 2 with 1. Kobe does not make players around him better- From my understanding you win more games with better players and you just stated Kobe does not do this 2. He would not be a good fit for many team.- If he would not be a good fit for many teams its almost irrelevant how good of an individual player he is if he would make teams worst and he is very team specific. If Kobe is range of team he would be a good fit for is small and Lebrons is large , then this mean Kobe will have a smaller percentage change of making teams good while Lebron will have a higher percentage of making team better..Which helps Lebron cause for being a better player if he will be more effective for more teams Hence to the Cavaliers who had the worst record in the NBA and after Lebron was drafted made it to the championship games within 4 years and had the best record in the nba twice, since Lebron left the Cavaleirs that have a total of 64 wins in 3 seasons!! Lebrons final two seasons the Cavaliers won 61 and 66 games. 3. Kobe misses more because he shots more, again that irrelevant because Lebron makes a higher percentage of his shots. Meaning if Kobe and Lebron shot the same amount of shots Kobe would still miss more shots http://bleacherreport.com... So in conclusion.. -Lebron has better stats in his career than Kobe in every category Points, rebounds, assist, steals, field goal percentage, Kobe has a better free throw percentage. http://bleacherreport.com... -Lebron makes his team better Kobe does not (my opponent even agreed) http://bleacherreport.com... -Lebron will be a good fit for many teams, Kobe will not (my opponent even agreed) -Lebron 4 MVPs only Michael Jordan has more (5) who is considered the best player of all-time http://bleacherreport.com...
Lebron James has is/been a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.

Kobe does not make the players around him better. That is true. He would not be a good fit for many teams. But his skill level combined with another very good player usually a bigman like shaq or gasol, the team is nearly unstoppable. He does NOT elevate the game of scrubs like luke walton and co. Lebron would make everyone else on his team better. But is elevating your teammates game always what give the team the best chance of winning? Kobe does miss more but that's because of his volume. Like you said, Lebron is a very efficient shooter. He picks his spots wisely and it's always on his mind to take good shots (also he has publicly said that he wants to be efficient and keep his shooting% high. it's like this private competition between him and durant). Kobe will take shots when he's triple guarded and 4ft out from the 3pt line...and STILL have a better chance of making it than 90% of the shots his teammates would take. Lebron has the luxury of being able to pick his spots. His team does not need for him to score 25 every night. If his team needed him to do so, his shooting % would be much lower. The lakers needed Kobe to be Kobe. Also, let's take 1v1. Who is the better player in a 1v1 situation? Who has more moves? Who is more likely to score? As Kobe got older, he needed to rely less on his athleticism and evolve his game to have more finesse moves. I think this argument boils down to what you mean as "better basketball player." I take that to mean whoever gives his team the best chance of winning. Many times, for the lakers, their best chance was to have the ball in Kobes hands and score. Kobe can be one-dimensional but that's b/c he wants to win. He knows that him shooting the last shot tripled teamed will still have a higher chance than steve blake shooting a wide open jump shot. When the lakers needed him to distribute, he averaged almost 10 assists (short stretch when Nash was injured). He plays hard on defense and has confidence that Lebron still lacks. It makes Lebron a much better, likable person sure. But Kobe is the black mamba for a reason.