BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most study-abroad programs should be renamed "party abroad": they are a waste of time and money

Thank you for your arguments. First of all, as they are students they probably do not earn their own money for studying abroad. It is definitely students parents paying all fees. And, of course, they send their child to study and they believe that he/she will justify that amount of money they pay for his studying and leaving abroad. If student goes to another country to study and fail exams then parents won't send him again because they will think that child won't be able to study there and that it will again be waste of money and child time. Second, student should have the responsibility for what he is doing and how he is doing. In order to show and prove that parents can rely on him. There is no point of going to study abroad if student going to party all the time. Because with the same results he could stay home and party there without wasting time and money. My respond. I'm not against of having friends and freedom. If you want to party and get to know some new people you can go for holiday anywhere you want to. But it doesn't make ant sense if you go there to study and instead of studying you go party. Especially if you are doing, for example, degree (which is not only 1 year!). Then, personal feelings and having an education is two different topics.
Most study-abroad programs should be renamed "party abroad": they are a waste of time and money

I agree with the statement. Because it is obvious that abroad students do not really care about studying and only thing they do is party. they know that there is no parents whos gonna scold them so they start feeling the freedom which students might didnt have in their home town. Youth party, go out, hang out with friends and forget about the college. After they fail their exams.And the program they took just flews away with money and time they spent on it. For example, at my university i met a lot of students that were studying abroad but they all came back because of failing their courses. Not bacause it was difficult, but because they didnt realize the importance of classes and were partying. Teachers dont care if you are studying or not. Their job is to teach. And student decide whether he wants to have good grades or party ecause there wont be any other chance to live without parents and be free from them.
Abraham Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis

Abraham Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis. Lincoln was able to re-unite the Union and he defeated Jefferson Davis. Davis did not organize the Confederacy very well and lost his "country" to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was intelligent, calm, resourceful, and cautious in the way he dealt with the Union Davis defied public opinion in the Confederacy and was constantly at heavy tensions with his people and his congress All in all, Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis
Helping poorer countries

I shall assume that my BoP is the direct opposite of Fire's. To win this debate I must:1) Show that we should give money to the government to help the poorer countries2) We should give things to the government rather than giving them directly to the people. Practicality and Effectiveness A government provides a unique platform from which to organize the distribution of resources. Pro's side is virtually impossible to implement without spending an obscene amound of money on each of the countries above listed. If the United States government or that of any other affluent country were to bequeath a sum of money on a third-world country for the purpose of improving the living standard there (education, clean drinking water, etc. ) they would not be able to effectively put Pro's plan into place. Giving money to "the people" will of course result in each person receiving a (likely small) amount of private property with which they may be able to slightly improve their prospects in some way or another. So we have an alternative: give the aid money as public property to the government of the benefactor. This way the money is consolidated and it could be put to use on much bigger projects that will benefit the public as a whole rather than benefiting to some smaller degree the private individual. Let's say we have a third-world country with a lack of clean water. If we distribute the money to the people of said country, nobody will be able to have stable access to clean drinking water because such a project takes more money than would be given to one person. If we give the money to the government, lots of money is in the hands of one entity, which it can then use to obtain clean water for a large portion of the population--something you most definitely could not do if the money were to be equally distributed amongst everybody. This also presents an organizational nightmare. One would have to find ways to distribute the money into a poor country, quite possibly having to deal with the threat of violence, and then one must find a way to equally distribute the money to the people. If we give money to the government directly, we have a much safer mode of transfer without having to deal with distribution and government allows us to use money more efficiently to serve a greater good. This shall conclude my arguments for this round. I do believe I have fulfilled my burden of proof; as such, I urge you to vote for Con. Looking forward to your responses!
Helping poorer countries

I don't think this is a good topic to argue, but I need to do this.Topic: We should help poorer countries by giving them things directly than giving them to the government.I want no sources in this debate, and want an experienced debater. 1. No forfeits2. No trolling3. Be civilThe definitionsPoor countries- Top 20 poor countries in (http://www.infoplease.com...)government- the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.Giving things such as money and things that poor countries NEED like education, etc.
Helping poorer countries

Thanks to you as well."Public is an automatic "no", because the government doesn't help and for example, give all the money and water to the public, they just keep it for themselves."This is an assertion without evidence. This debate is about if, as a principle, we should give money to the government or to the people when considering foreign aid. Pro's attempt to link poverty to bad or corrupt government does not satisfy his burden of proof because he has not shown that poor countries will always have poor governments or that a poor country can never have a fully functional government. Seeing as most if not all of his argument is based upon this shaky and unproven premise, Pro has failed to fulfill his BoP."...giving it directly will be better, because we can give money to every school, and to the poor so they can have it, or we give it to the government, and only they will have it."It would be the government's role to distribute the money to schools or the extremely poor. Using my solution outlined above, any existing corruption would be avoided and the money could be more efficiently distributed. Since it would then be consolidated, more good in the form of public services could be done.Pro has failed to satisfy his BoP. Distributing money amongst the people would be terribly inefficient and ineffective, while giving money to the government while implementing my system above would be much more effective and reliable. As such, I urge y'all to vote for Con.Thanks for the debate Fire! :)
Helping poorer countries

Thanks for Tree to have this debate. It was quite fun. I will be making my defense, and conclusion"Pro uses a specific example despite the general question of how to give money to countries in need. The problem with this statement is that Pro picks a specific country to answer a general question."That was just an example. In the later part of the argument, I said about in general, but I talked about Chad to make an example, to make it more realistic. Many other of the poor countries, maybe all have the same problem. My argument is still valid because I showed an example to prove my point without sources, and I did talk about in general. Vote for Pro."The government may then send diplomats or some other representative of itself to said country and evaluate the country's progress."The problem is, and as I said, the government would not do any of this at the beginning because they want to save their own lives, and making their lives happier. So they will not do any of this, and will not even try to make the government better. It isn't about two methods, it's about if we should give it directly, or to the government. And the government is a bad one, so vote for Pro.Con says that giving it directly will be slower, but this is false, because there are already tons of organizations which already do this, and it will be much harder to fix the government up. We might waste some money by transportation, but at least that is not all, because the government makes the money get wasted for all (except for the government)Because I have shown clear reasons why we should give things directly, please vote for Pro!!!
Helping poorer countries

I shall be quoting key points from my opponent's argument and refuting them here."Take Chad for an example, it is the 5th poorest country in the list...there [sic] government is extremely bad."Pro uses a specific example despite the general question of how to give money to countries in need. The problem with this statement is that Pro picks a specific country to answer a general question. For this statement to work, Pro must prove, without sources as per the rules, that poor government is inherent in less wealthy countries and that it is logically impossible for a poor country to have a high-quality or at least a functioning government. Until Pro can prove that government will inherently be bad, corrupt, weak, or nonfunctioning if the country is poor, Pro's whole argument is invalid."We aren't giving the money for the government to spend on their own, we are just giving them the money because we will HELP the poor, not just let the government to [sic] satisfy themselves by getting money easily and by doing nothing."There is another way to mitigate this. A country could give a certain amount to another for the purpose of improving, let's say, an education system. The benefactor country would perhaps allot a small amount of money and specify a purpose for said money. The government may then send diplomats or some other representative of itself to said country and evaluate the country's progress. If the progress is deemed unsatisfactory by the benefactor, then the country would stop donations immediately. If it was deemed satisfactory, then donations would be continued until the specified purpose, in this case education, was completed."Fixing the government will obviously take a longer time, it is logical sense that [if] we actually have to fix the whole government [it] will be harder."I completely agree. A rich and powerful country attempting to meddle (even with good intentions) in another country's government will not be seen in good light, nor is it particularly acheivable in most cases. So here we have two choices: donate money to the government with the system outlined above, or give it directly to "the people." The latter choice would take an immense amount of organization, and additionally it will waste lots of money on transportation that could be used for a better purpose. A government system is more reliable and thousands of times more efficient and more likely to make real positive change; thus we should obviously donate directly to the government when considering foreign aid.I believe I have gotten to all of Pro's key points. Over to Fire for his rebuttals :)
Helping poorer countries

I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments. RebuttalMy opponent basically makes his argument about private and public. As I said, public is an automatic "no", because the government doesn't help and for example, give all the money and water to the public, they just keep it for themselves. The government already has a job, and has at least more wealth than the average person in Chad, or any other place. However, if we give it to schools, and all that, it will have much more benefit because the school will use these supplies and money to provide better education, and make school life better. In some situations, they are both private, but in some situations, giving it directly will be better, because we can give money to every school, and to the poor so they can have it, or we give it to the government, and only they will have it. Our purpose of giving money is to help the poor, but we aren't exactly helping the poor in that situation, just helping the government, who doesn't help the country because they want to live in a happy life. ConclusionI have refuted my opponent's arguments, please vote for PRO! ! !
intervention in Libya

Thank you for responding and not conceding. Although, clearly, my opponent knows that my arguments are correct judging by his statement. Let's move on to address his responses. 1. Yes, I am quite aware he's going to kill people. But as I stated, do you really want to add Americans to his list? Secondly, my opponent said Libya is "producing" WMD's. That means they don't have any now. Since weapons of mass destruction take years to create, this crisis will be long over by that time. My opponent needs to prove that this will actually be a problem. (And anyways my point about americans dying still applies, and even more in this case). 2. This response doesn't even make sense. My opponent is saying that if we do not attack Americans will still die. How does this make sense? Also, Libya doesn't want us to join into this because they know we can crush them. I know that we have chosen the rebellion's side, but we still haven't gone in. As long as we don't go in, no Americans will die. If the Libyans attack our fleet, that means we are officially in the war. If they don't attack, no Americans will die and we're not in the war. Which is my position. I still don't see how American blood will be spilt even if we keep our distance. 3. "America is the world police" I am quite aware of that. "We will always have to live up to that reputation" Nope. We don't. Libya is not a threat to our National Security. So we don't have to go in. Our National Security IS threatened if we DO go in, though. "We are dependant on Foreign oil" My evidence directly refuted that. Just cross-Apply the evidence I read. Remember, Evidence is > than logic. My opponent needs to provide evidence directly refuting mine or else I win this debate. "Never said it will be military intervention" A ship blockade. A no fly zone. Sir, that IS military intervention. "Without war we cannot have peace" This is not OUR war. It's Libya's war. If Gaddafi was shooting nukes at us it would our war, but it isn't. It has nothing to do with OUR peace.
intervention in Libya

Oh wow nice arguments I have a feeling I should conceide but I'll give my rebuttal regardless let's see how this goes. 1. Regardless what Gaddafi says, he will still slaughter thousands, and most will be innocent civilians. This will undoubtedly escale into a legitimate civil war instead of a civil uprising. Gaddafi. Is determined to exterminate anybody that opposes him regardless of the consequences and I will go as far as to say that he is worse than Saddam Hussein, but unlike Hussein, Libya is producing weapons of mass destruction. If anybody sits by and watches this they will regret not intervening sooner when he turns those weapons against his own people. 2. As to American casualties, nothing will prevent that no matter how hard we try no matter what happens their will be blood spilled on any side, we do have troops in the red sea, specifically in the Suez Canal, and to instigate us into joining the war they will attack our naval fleet. The U.S. has already chosen a side which is that of the opposition, all they need is an excuse to go in now, regardless, as I mentioned before sides have been chosen and american lives will be on the line whether we we go in or not. 3. America is the world police, its a reputation that we have had since WWI. And we will always have to live up to that reputation for one reason and one reason only, as you said before, National Security and Interest. No matter what we do America will always be the world's watchdog, its just how it is nothing we do or say will change that. The U.S. is a country that depends on foreign oil, so in order to protect our interest abroad in the middle east we must intervene, wheter it be a military or diplomatic and economic intervention. I never said it had to be military intervention, it could be an embargo, a ship blockade or what is most likely gonna happen, a no fly zone. But without war there can not be peace in this world, even if it is short lived.
Teachers promote the leaders of tomorrow which should entitle them with higher salaries

Hey, i assume when you say teachers, you mean public school teachers. your argument is sound in the sense that mothers should be paid the most cuz without without mothers there would be nothing and following the same logic grandmothers should be paid even more for being grandmothers. This is what you said, "Let me put it simply, without teachers there would have been no man on the moon. No vaccines. No indispensable medicines. "Blacks" and "Whites" would still be segregated and the hole in the Ozone layer would be twice as big." It is true that teachers have profound role on their students but only some, not all. On the other hand there are teachers who are horrible, and further more teachers are not only bad but criminals who can be indulged in heinous crimes against the children. Given the reality of situation first you need to get all teachers to be the best group in the world's history then maybe you could argue for your cause. Till then your assumptions are juvenile. And secondly you brought the stats for teachers in Australia, if teachers are teachers then why didn't you argue for the teachers in the third world countries, should they not be paid the same as others in different countries according to your aforesaid principles. I appreciate you trying to talk about this with the minister even though i might different on your way and talking points. Simply quoting a newspaper doesn't prove the findings, what was the methodology, until you come to terms with that, your arguments fells short that learning is proportional to teacher's pay. Having received no contact from the deemed "education" experts, I relied on two of my lecture and homework giving teachers for their views on the issue I was raising. Visualising a teaching utopia with the aid of my question, both teachers were quick to respond. To my surprise, both Teacher A and Teacher B had contrasting views on the issue I was raising. From Coming from the United Kingdom, Teacher .................................................................. of teachers, Teacher B addresses the issue in a larger picture including the Australian workforce. Till here, nothing whatsoever was a any source of your point just a story. Yes, I agree teachers can inspire the leaders and workforce of tomorrow, but also can parents, friends, family and so many other sources. I am not against paying teachers higher or as a matter of fact anybody else for that matter. But the world we live in is primarily run by economics. Personally I would love everybody to be paid enough that they would spend their lives peacefully, but you should bring in more economic argument for this to happen and maybe a selection process where you can find the best teachers. I would love to have a healthy debate.
Eating meat is right! There is nothing wring with it.

Pro's argument is an appeal to tradition or history, and the biological point doesn't describe why we ought to eat meat. We have been using slaves for thousands of years, why not continue? Suffering should generally be avoided in my view, and killing animals for food - often in ways that involve a large amount of pain - is immoral in that it causes clearly unnecessary suffering. Animals, like humans, have nerves and brains that can process these sensations. Vegetarians are evidence that humans can get along just fine without killing defenseless animals, and maintain a healthy lifestyle. Surely Pro would object to humans hunting and killing other humans, and given our bias towards our own species it would seem perfectly natural. However, if we want to live in a world that holds a greater balance of happiness over suffering it would be beneficial to stop the slaughter of sentient animals for food and completely ignore their own suffering.
Eating meat is right! There is nothing wring with it.

Haha...OK, thanks!First off, I would like to say that humans are supposed to eat meat. In the past, humans used to be hunter-gatherers. We hunted animals, and gathered plants for food. I'm not saying that we are carnivores, but are omnivores, so we also eat meat.Many argue that we are strictly herbivores, due to the legnth of our intestines in relation to the body. Carnivores have a ratio of 3:1, while we have a ratio of about 8:1. However, true herbivores have even larger ratios, such as 20:1 (cows) and 12:1 (horses). Because we are in between, it supports that fact that we are in herbivores.K...good luck!
Religious

I'm replying on my iPad, so I cannot use the features of RTF. In this round, my opponent says that we cannot prove something without physically observing it. However, in the last round, I provided an entire argument doing the opposite, which my opponent dropped. I extend that, by the way. My opponent opines that if we cannot prove something exists, beyond posteriori proof, it cannot exist. This argument assumes the following syllogism: P1: Things that we cannot observe cannot exist P2: God cannot be observed C: Ergo, God cannot exist As we can see, Con has not provided evidence for premise one viz. Con commits the bare assertion fallacy. The rest of Con's arguments are red herrings, as she is arguing against the Christian God which obviously does not pertain to the resolution. Nevertheless, I will rebut those as well. Pro opines that the Bible is false, but the source she uses to corroborate it does not debunk the Bible; it only cites the person's interpretations of the Bible. So no. The Bible is not false. She states that the Bible contains morally bad stories, but for this to be permissible, she must prove objective morality exists, so the stories can be deemed as objectively bad. Over to you.
Religious

How do you know god exists if there is no sign of him/her anywhere? Researchers do not have a single fragment of proof if god exists or not, no documentary except made up myths. Also, the bible is false as well according to : http://www.truthbeknown.com... "Have you read the Bible cover to cover?" Actually, I have, and the hypocrite who asks such a question obviously hasn't, because the Bible is full of dreadful stories about genocide, murder, adultery, incest, deceit, greed, arrogance, megalomania, sexual perversion, and all sorts of despicable behavior. On second thought, perhaps the people who ask such a question HAVE read the Bible, as we are sure it creates dementia.