BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

Thank you. "Private schools are a means for the ones who can afford it to get a better education" is essentially what you're saying, I believe. If this holds true, then the people who are less fortunate and are forced into public schools are doomed to a lower education and therefore, a lower success rate in life. The people in private schools are mostly already wealthy (or atleast have money to afford it) so they'll be fine in life, tons better than the ones who apparently receive a lower education. This is why I'm saying the level of education in public and private schools are about equal. If given the initiative, the kids in public schools can do EXCELLENTLY. If what you're saying about having better teachers in private schools is also true, then why should the ones who can afford it only receive this? Why are we not focused on bettering the public schools system? That's where the majority of our adolescents and teens go today; why are we focused on maintaining a system of monetary showcasing rather than attempting to better our public schools for the ones that are least-likely to go to college, due to the fact that they aren't receiving a better education? I go to a public school in a small town, and the only foreign language we have is Spanish. We don't have as many electives as others due to our budgeting and such. Yes, good education does benefit the nation greatly. Think of how we can improve the public school system tenfold by pushing our focus to them instead of private schools. Yes, the rich may send their kids to private schools should they wish. This only furthers the social class gap that we already have in our nations. The wealthy get wealthier, everyone else is in a slump. The quality and atmosphere of schools should not be better or worse depending on your financial status, rather it should be equal. There are people struggling for money, many of them being mothers and fathers. They would feel so much more worse knowing they cannot send their kids to private school. Why should they get the short end of the stick? Just because they can't afford it? Education is so important, as you've outlined already. Then why are we not focusing on bettering public schools instead? There are many more who go to public schools rather than private ones. They are the majority of our nations. I'd like to thank my opponent for an extremely interesting debate. I thank voters and any spectators that viewed this debate in advance.
THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

sorry for the blunder :( Firstly, the government does not fund the private schools. The private schools are able to run the whole system because the school fee is very expensive. This is a fact, as I have mentioned that the students have to pay a large sum of money in order to attend those schools. On the other hand, 'public schools' run themselves with the money from the government. That is the main reason they are called "PUBLIC" schools. Secondly, what you have said about the academic benefits is not true. Private schools are able to employ teachers of better quality because they have a lot of money. This ultimately leads to a higher quality of education and as a result, students are able to go to prestigious universities. In England -sorry for such a narrow example- while many of the students (roughly abut half) in public schools choose NOT go to a universiy, nearly over 90 percent of the students in private schools choose to go. This is patently because of their grades. (GCSE, A levels) Also in Korea, none to two students from public schools manage to go to Seoul university(the best school in South Korea. It's like Harvard in America and Oxford in England) about 30 students from private schools matriculate Seoul uni. Lastly, swimming pools are a choice of the school so if they have the budget, there is no stopping them! Plus, good exercise leads to higher concentration.:) Now on to my last argument. (Actually this was going to be about the Nation's competence) As I have mentioned above, the quality of the teachers goes up. Why? Well it's simple. The school (private school, I am talking about) would obviously want to attract more students to the school, because well, it's their way to survive. So they would try their best to bring in the best teachers. Because the better the teachers, the better the classes, the better the education, and better the education, more parents would want to send their children to that specific school So the quality of education in private schools in long term is likely to go up because private schools compete with each other, too. Good education equals a nation's competence. The better educated the students are, they are likely to contribute to the country when they are grown up. With all these arguments in hand, I firmly propose that private schools should never be abolished and should continue to exist for the country's prosper.
THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

"The private schools there are small, as they do not have so much budget, since all they get is from the government. In private schools, however, the tuition fee per student is on average 12 thousand pounds in a year. " I think you meant to say "public schools" in your first sentence :s. Firstly, I mentioned private schools being more "sophisticated. " This does not necessarily mean that they are better. Nowhere in my argument did I mention that private schools actually accompany higher education along with this higher class atmosphere. It's true that private schools are better equipped with things, but think about it. The government funds a copious amount of money to keep these private schools running. Don't you think the money could be better spent elsewhere? Yes, the rich may spend their money on what they wish, however private schools are not the correct place to do so. There is no academic benefits that those whom go to private schools receive. Solely going to private school because the environment is more high class and has swimming pools shows a pompous attitude, a thing our society can do without. You also speak of private schools having swimming pools. What's the use for this? Can you get a degree off of this? Can you incorporate this swimming school into actual academics? No, no, and no. These things are not necessary; they're superfluous things that do not contribute towards academics.
THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

I will firstly start with the rebuttals I surmise that you are contradicting yourself, because while you have said that you think private schools should be abolished because the lower class cannot attend such schools, you have also said that public schools are good enough and private schools don't really make a difference. If you examine closely, your premise for your former statement is that private schools are indeed, better than general public schools. However, your latter statement is a paradox to the premise of the former statement. (Am I right?) Furthermore, if I just pinpoint on your first issue, I say that private schools are -at least -equipped with better facilities than the public ones. Also as I have mentioned in my prior argument, students going to private schools is just the same as the rich buying expensive stereos or vehicles. My second argument on this issue is... yes, the fact that bringing down private schools will bring down the quality of schools as a whole. I, myself, have attended both private and public schools, and I have found out that private schools are better equipped with the school facilities. This is true for the vast amount of schools. The schools in England-where I have stayed for a while- show this clearly. The private schools there are small, as they do not have so much budget, since all they get is from the government. In private schools, however, the tuition fee per student is on average 12 thousand pounds in a year. That is 20 thousand dollars. That means a much larger budget for the school! WEehee! (Private boarding schools cost 21 thousand pounds a year) The public schools usually have one school field, while the private schools have at least five plus a large swimming pool. How is that? This means more convenience for the students attending the school. Yes,oppenents may induce that the low income students cannot ever attend those schools, but I think that problem should be solved in the other way. (Like making a scholarship and funding the students with high achievment) Private schools are much better equipped and therefore the government should never abolish them-they should rather try to improve the public school's facilities instead.
THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

From what I can conjecture by reading your statements, you're ultimately asserting that private schools becoming abolished is a direct transgression of human rights (please correct me if I'm wrong.) Private schools are only for those who may afford it. This represents that if you're poor, you're out of luck; sorry, no sophisticated education for you! Money talks here, not intellect. Secondly, going to a private school does not necessarily mean that the pupil will receive a higher education. Private schools only become a source of monetary collection from the upper class, which really serves no higher benefit than receive a sense of luxury and such. Public schools have yielded excellent results from its students, and the ratio of intellectual capacity from one who went to public school to one who attended private school may very well be the same.
THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

I believe that private schools should never be abolished. My first argument is that students have the right to choose the education they receive. There is UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 that Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. This clearly shows that abolishing private schools is patently a violation of human rights. In a democratic country, including the US, parents should be able to send their children to any kind of school if they can afford to. It is like the fact that we can buy whatever we can afford. Education is no different to high income families buying expensive cars, or expensive food for that matter. If the abolishing of private schools occur, the students who can afford to go to the private schools and the students who wish to be educated in a more sophisticated manner cannot do so. As an alternative, the government should make it so that students from a low income family be given some sort of an aid, like providing them with school fees if their grades are good... People like to argue about the fact that pupils from low income families never get the chance to enter private schools, but I believe that the right solution to that is to alter and establish laws to support those with low income rather than to abolish private schools both for low&high income families' benefits. Therefore considering the human rights private schools should never ever be abolished. Please someone debate with moi ;(
Big breasts are better than small breasts.

My opponent as forfeited her round. However, for the sake of clarification, it should be noted that the following are examples of the sizes in which we speak: Small: http://stardietsecrets.com... http://www.aolcdn.com... http://www.debate.org... http://images.google.com... Medium: http://images.askmen.com... http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com... Large: http://images.askmen.com... http://pub.tv2.no... And were not talking about: http://www.fugly.com... My opponent as given no reason to put objective values on that which by its very nature is subjective.
Big breasts are better than small breasts.

My opponent assumes that big breasts are better than the average and the smaller variety of breasts. Definition: Since my opponent did not define better, it shall be defined as follows: of superior quality or excellence. "I believe that breast size has been, is, and will always be important" While this may very well be true, big boobs may not always be the size of importance. A man who prefers breasts of the smaller variety will find it more important that a woman has smaller breasts. Such a man cannot with an honest tongue say that large breasts are either more important or better than smaller breasts. "Bigger boobs are just more favorable in every aspect." To whom are they more favorable in every aspect? You cannot take a subjective matter and objectify it. Neither large breasts nor small breasts are "better" in any objective sense. When a woman is trying to squeeze her body through a very narrow space, it would most certainly be better for her have smaller breasts, in which case big breast are not better in every aspect. Big breasts are not better for a person who prefers smaller breasts. "But a proportional, healthy rack is completely desirable for both men and women." Of course breasts need not be large in order to be healthy and proportional. And, to the contrary, Large breasts sag quicker, where as smaller breasts tend to keep their form and shape much longer and generally look better, more in proportion with the body. There is also a certain pain with lack of variety in bra types and more obstructive and uncomfortable exercising. Is it true that men prefer big breasts? This psychology abstract in which men were polled seems to suggest that men prefer women with medium size breasts: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com...) Another poll taken shows that 48% of men prefer medium size breasts, while only 26% preferred big breasts. (http://www.opinion.com.au...#) Still another poll taken shows that men prefer average size breasts over larger breasts. (http://uk.toluna.com...) Here is a list of very attractive celebrities with smaller breasts: Keira Knightley Milla Jovovich Sandra Bullock Ellen Pompeo Ashley Olsen Amy Acker Debra Messing Kate Bosworth Mary-Kate Olsen There are of course many more. My opponent has failed to show how breast size preference can be objectified and how it is better in every aspect. To the contrary, most men actually prefer breasts of average size. Thank you.
Big breasts are better than small breasts.

This may get a little dirty, so if you're up for it let's go! :D I want a fun debate. I believe that breast size has been, is, and will always be important. And not in a derogatory sense at all. Not that I have huge boobs, and not that I'm shallow in ANY way. I'm not bisexual or a lesbian. Bigger boobs are just more favorable in every aspect. Not huge balloons. But a proportional, healthy rack is completely desirable for both men and women.
Rap battle

hoes say my d#$% look like a ostrichn it gon' peck out yo eyes, biich.dis gay nigga callin himself "alexander the great"while he so scrawny he look like mary-kate.you a preppy asss nigga with parents who be accountants,nigga all cranky cuz mama forgot to pay his allowance... biich.usin words like "lad" makes you a f&%^in' homo, aight?gugan in prison, now thatd be sight: gugan would be givin his showermates fashion tipsas he reaches for their d%$@s and kisses them on the lips.i wish debate.org had real rap battlers who were quick and intellectualnot indian, gay, and flamboyantly homosexual.gugan, quit this battle and make me some curry.u already s#$* your pants, looks like ur in a hurry.
Rap battle

Your first 4 lines don't even rhyme, you've started in decline your whole damn rap has an awful design. But your right, I ain't got 20 inch rims, mine roll on 24, someone please show my opponent the door. Gugan may be a 'nigg@s' name, but 'cherrytree', well thats just kinda lame, your not even in the same game, bow your head in shame. It's embarrassing that you accepted this, your a hassle, your own damn kids take you on in their custody battle calling women names, your very derogatory, were you abused as a child? c'mon... whats your story!? You like mentioning d!*ks, perhaps your gay? You at a lads sleepover, 'C'mon lads!.. lets hit the hay'. I'm gonna finish up now, give you some time with your lover, remember, no sex tomorrow, let your anus recover. over
Rap battle

niggas aint got s%$# cuz biiches on my d%^@niggas aint got biichescuz i got s%#$ on my d#$@ (ferreal)ye aint got 20 inch rimsye aint got dem manly limbsgugan's the nigga's nameand he got no biiches (shame)call me cherrytree i chop yo asss down.makin gugan look like he's a f$#%in' clown.dis battle was over b4 it begun, son,i shoot down fake niggas like im strappin a gun (BRAP BRAP BRAP) over
Rap battle

Let the battle begin, I'm going to start, My opponents rhymes run thin, mine come from the heart. This guys in decline, I'm on ascent, So from me to you this is my letter of intent! I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, But are you sure? Don't wanna damage your mental state! Your King Darius, I'm Alexander the Great! Your response gonna be slower than the rise of the unemployment rate! So I'll be waiting for you to leave an impression, Or maybe you should just leave your concession!
Anger can be a good moral motiation

IT IS POSSIBLE that you base your facts in self control, however anger can be a state of mind that betrayed your feelings and emotions. Anger itself is a felling that most of the time can be control, however think that we can bring something possible out of a negative fact it is NOT NECESARY the state of mind and the capacity of a person can play a basic role to determinate the state of feeling in a particular moment on life
Anger can be a good moral motiation

IT IS IRRELEVANT the situation in which the man has found himself in or whom he has lost. As Epictetus would say, one must deal with what is in ones control. What may occur outside of you and around you is not what you can control, but if you learn to control that which i s, you can take all that anger and convert it into a positive. Anger isnt always a bad thing to have. Sometimes it is just the push that is needed emotionally to get you to do thing you would have never done had you not found yourself in certain positions that in the long run are beneficial and better to you.
Anger can be a good moral motiation

This is irrelevant since every man have their desire to know what to do and what not to do. The feeling of anger and their effects in the mind control, is all up to the person choice. if the feeling of a lost can make the person commit a wrongdoing, is because that was the decision of the man in that moment, even though the feeling of anger it have to be a state of mind were the person analyze the effects of their actions, and its consequences.
Anger can be a good moral motiation

Those are reasons that Seneca presents against Aristole's argument and IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, they may be other factors of life in which even a good man under anger who has been wronged or who has suffered a loved one will seek to either punish or protect but even in its most painful moment ITS POSSIBLE THAT his desire leans towards protect. Anger can be a motivator to fear what has happened and seek to learn intellectually how to resolve it.
Anger can be a good moral motiation

Aristotle in his writing points out the 3 basic components to understanding anger which include understanding the frame of mind, with who they are angry and how often or why. He also mentions that anger is geared towards pain and pleasure. Virtue, as he states, whether intellectual or moral can lean a persons anger to be good. Once on understand that moral virtue arises from habits and that habits are potentially acquired before exhibited one can use it to promote or encourage intellectual virtue, a desire/motivation to become a better person, one of good character.
James was the blood brother of Jesus

My opponent states, "That they are blood brothers is in little doubt from the text." to which I say this is possibly the most preposterous statement made in this entire debate. This is a topic that has been debated continuously for literally centuries. In my opponents opening argument he states, "Now, the Greek word used in the gospels is adelphos (pl. adelphoi), which translates directly as "brother." This might be interpreted in the wider sense of "brethren" but this seems very unlikely for two reasons. It was not used in this sense anywhere else in the New Testament" I provided an example of where adelphoi is used in its broader sense "brethren" in Matthew 23:8, which my opponent acknowledged in the last round. My opponent continues to bring up that James is listed with Joseph, Simon, and Judas as brothers, yet you never see anyone trying to make the case for the other three brothers because it is not supported by the Gospels, Only James, which is mentioned in the couple supporting scriptures already brought up and rebutted. He states that in Galatians 1: 18-19 "James alone is called the Lord's brother, and not Cephas (Peter), who is arguably the preferred disciple" which first read the verse for yourself 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. This only helps my case as I had already identified the Fathers of both the Apostles that are named James. Zebedee, and Alphaeus Not Joseph. As for why Jesus gave John the responsibility of his mother's care to John he suggests to possibilities, Number 1, the author just made it up. Or two, "that the family of Jesus all rejected him initially, including James, as in Mark 3:21, and so Mary was put in the care of John." Both suggestions hold no water, first you can not argue scripture and claim the parts that don't fit with your interpretations are just made up, and second, Even if James was his blood brother and rejected Jesus early on, there is no suggestion in scripture that James rejected his mother, and the law would still be on the side of James if he were actually her Son. I will agree that they could have been Half brothers as the Catholic's suggest but even if that were the case, there would be no blood shared as Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was conceived.
James was the blood brother of Jesus

CONCLUSIONMy opponent makes a couple of interesting points. First, that Mat 23:8 has Jesus tell the disciples to call one another "brother," and the word adelphoi is indeed used in this instance. He therefore asserts that the brothers of Jesus might be disciples.There are a number of responses. First, as I've already showed, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are listed as the brothers of Jesus along with the rest of his direct family, including his mother and unnamed "sisters," in Mat 13:55. No mention of the disciples. Second, in Gal 1:18-19, James alone is called the Lord's brother, and not Cephas (Peter), who is arguably the preferred disciple. Third, the names of the brothers only match some of the disciples; there is no disciple Joseph, for example. Therefore James is the actual brother of Jesus.The second point he makes is that, building on his first assertion, the James mentioned in Galatians is simply the disciple James, and he goes on to argue that he is James the son of Alphaeus, and therefore not the blood brother of Jesus. However, I have already shown this to be a dubious use of the word "brother." In any case, Tradition holds that these are not the same James.The third point is that Jesus gave responsibility for his mother's care to John, and not James. This is an interesting argument, but I would argue two possibilities. One, that this never happened, that the author of the gospel wished to demonstrate that John was the disciple most beloved of Jesus as he states. Or two, that the family of Jesus all rejected him initially, including James, as in Mark 3:21, and so Mary was put in the care of John.In conclusion, it is not possible that the brothers of Jesus were merely disciples, for the reasons listed above. They must have been direct family. They were not cousins, as this is a separate word in Greek. They might have been half-brothers, as the Catholic Church suggests, but there is no record of Joseph's previous marriage. The text says, in several places, that these men were the brothers, adelphoi, of Jesus. That they are blood brothers is in little doubt from the text. Thus, James is a blood brother of Jesus.