BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
India to become superpower should focus on primary educaion for all or higher education for few

:) First off, my opponent seems to be making a case that India should focus on education as a superpower. As the con in this debate I'll be arguing otherwise. India is one of the largest states in the world, having a population of about 1.15 billion people(. http://www.indiaonlinepages.com...), with about 55% living below the poverty line. . http://www.bangladesh.com... With staggering statistics like this India should be focusing on reducing poverty rather than educating people although education is a large part of reducing poverty. The UN currently has some programs in place in order to help reduce poverty(. http://www.undp.org.in...), but there are also many social barriers to overcome in India. One such problem is the usage of the Caste system in Indian society. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Although this system of prejudice has mostly broken down in cities it still provides some obstacles for Indians trying to work their way up in society. This is just a small introduction, I'll now hand this over to my opponent. Good luck to both of us.
India to become superpower should focus on primary educaion for all or higher education for few

If you are planning for a year then sow rice,if you are planning for a decade then plant trees an if you are planning for lifetime then educate people............... From the year of Independence 1947 uptil now I ndian govt is making policies to provide primary educaion.. so I am in the for of the motion. I am not talking about the education related to mere slate and chalk... But primary education makes you aware so there is no pint arising of giving higher education. I want to quote a ststement that education does not teaches you what you knew not but it makes a person what u was not.
is education important in the development of a person

How much did you learn in your years of school that you will use in your future profession? We learn about the past, math, and English. Though some of it is necessary to become literate how much learning are we getting to help us for the future? For example in my high school, they have gotten rid of any class that you need to use your hands and build things. What we learn in school today isn"t something that can make us a good profession in the future. If I ended school after high school, I honestly wouldn"t know the first step to starting up a business or anything because in the high schools today they do not prepare us for any of that.
is education important in the development of a person

Are you saying in those 16 years of school you didn"t learn anything or change your worldviews or opinions based on what you were taught? Our education although sometimes tedious contains many things that help us develop as a person. Some of these things include history to make sure we don"t develop into people that made great mistakes such as Hitler. As I said earlier we are taught how to be literate and speak a language or multiple languages which help communicate our ideas and philosophies not only people that speak our language but with people of many different ethnicities and cultures.
is education important in the development of a person

The purpose of education is just purely to make us a stronger country. The higher-ups in this country don"t really care about us, they just don"t want any other country being stronger than us. In order for this to happen they put us through over 12 years of school then through another 4 years or so of college where we still learn pointless things. Most of the things we learn are things that we will never use again anyways. The purpose for education is to make this country more advanced then competing countries. If you noticed, school was never really an issue until the United States realized that China was becoming more advanced and smarter than us.
is education important in the development of a person

Education is one of the most important things about developing as a person because it shapes how we perceive the world. Without education we are no better than animals acting purely on instinct to get through life. With education are mind develops and becomes very much part of the person we develop into. This is evident in that we have to be literate to fill out job applications but even more broader than that we have to be taut language so that we can express ourselves on an intellectual level with one another.
The Accused is going to Hell (For Rejecting Catholic Mariology)

Again, my opponent did not address my arguments at all but on the contrary, he still presented an another argument without finishing refuting first my previous arguments. Now, he ends up with the communion of the saints which he believes to be the intercessory act of saints in heaven for saints on earth. On the Invocation of the SaintsLuke 15:1-10 proves without a shadow of doubt that persons in heaven is not aware of what’s happening on earth unless God told them:The Parable of the Lost Sheep 15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. The Parable of the Lost Coin 8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” In both parables, only the persons who lost and found something knows the entire happenings and their freinds came to know about it only after they were told to. This is very significant because it clearly shows that the saints in heaven are unaware of what's happening on earth unless God told them about it.Conclusion:The saints on earth cannot ask the saints in heaven to pray for them because they simply will not hear for they can't based on Luke's own gospel. The invocation of the saints in heaven is unbiblical but the intercession of the saints in heaven is biblical ( Revelation 5:8).
Resolved: Global Warming Exists

~~Defense and Rebuttels~~R1: My entire first contention is backed up with actual proof and sources untill my opponent can give sources I see know reason to believe any thing his contention says.R2: Same with my opponant's second contention. My opponant has no sources of this info. He could have merley made all of this up. Once again why should me or any of the voters believe any of this true until my opponent backs it up with sources? Untill sources are given my opponent's arguments are invalid.
Resolved: Global Warming Exists

First of all, my case will refute all of his attacks. 1. Yes the Earth is heating up. How? "Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. " The rate of the earth warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise. An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts. " Therefore ice is actually disappearing and actually the Earth is heating up. My opponent brings up 1 time events instead of actual long time events. I am therefore done with this case.
Resolved: Global Warming Exists

My casemy argument will be that global warming doesn't exist. I will give severial contentions that prove that global warming is not happening. C1: Is the Earth really heating up? The answer is no, the exact opposite is happening the temperatures are dropping. Christopher Booker a reporter for Telegragh a UK newspaper said this in one of his reveiws: 'temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the “winter from hell”. This winter looks set to be even worse. 'This report is proof that the Earth is not heating up [1]. C2: Is ice disapearing? The answer is negative. The exact opposite is occuring, 500,000 sq km more than last year. Also, Anartic sea-ice reached its highest levels this year. This report was posted by Cryosphere Today. [2]Side note: It is often said that the polar bear population is decreasing as a result of glaciers and arctic ice melting, however I would like to let you know that the polar bears are actually increasing in number! This is proof that the ice caps are not melting. ConclusionDo to this evidence that the Earth is not actually heating up. It is safe to say that Global warming isn't actually occuring. Vote Con! [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk......[2] . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu......
Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated

In most countries over the world, the drinking age in public is between the ages of 16 to 18. Drinking in private is considered legal, unless the person is under the age of six. In the United States underage drinking is viewed as taboo, which increases the appeal for underage drinking, The fact that it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 creates a rebellious factor applied to drinking. If the rebellious appeal is reduced then underage drinking and other problems associated with underage drinking(ie. alcoholism, drunk driving and alcohol poisoning) will be reduced considerably.
Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated

A peer-reviewed study from the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs by Denise Kandel proves the the younger the age a person begins to drink alcohol, the more likely it is that they will use illegal drugs, making the use of drugs completely relevant to the argument. It is proven that those who drink at lower ages are more likely to use illegal drugs. The safety of U.S. citizens should be prioritized over the popularity of bars. It is also quite likely that the costs of imprisoning more people for illicit drugs crime will by far outweigh the stimulation to our economy the elimination of the drinking age could potentially provide. In summary: Elimination of the drinking age is medically unsafe and is proven to increase the use of narcotics among young drinkers.
Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated

The argument referencing the drinking age and drug use is completely relevant. Statistically, there is a direct correlation between underage drinking and illicit drug use. This is not limited to simply smoking tobacco. The drugs in question are illegal and include but are not limited to: Marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin. Elimination of the drinking age essentially encourages use of these drugs; some of which are extremely dangerous. If the drinking age were to be eliminated, the amount of youth using illegal drugs would rise. This increase would stimulate the amount of drug offenders being arrested and imprisoned, costing prisons millions of dollars. The elimination of the drinking age is not only unsafe medically, but it is unsafe in the sense that it could possibly increase the national deficit.
Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated

The evidence between underage drinking and underage drug use are irrelevant. People who can't smoke still drink, and there is more of a social stigma attached to smoking then there is attached to drinking, even for people who are over the legal drinking age. Drinking is not a right for the government to decide. Drinking is a moral issue that should be given to the individual and the parents to decide when exactly is the right time to drink. Drinking is like smoking, many individuals choose not to smoke, and so many individuals choose not to drink. The only ones that chain smokers and excessive drinking hurts the most is the individual.
Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated

Our reasoning for regulations such as our drinking age should not be influenced by the choices of other governments. We have restricted such things because they are detrimental to our own country. I will begin my own argument based on two contentions: 1.) Elimination of the drinking age would be medically irresponsible. Underage drinking has detrimental effects on both a long-term and short-term basis. On the short-term side of the spectrum, underage drinking can cause the following effects: Decelerated reactions from the cerebral cortex, central nervous system, frontal lobes, hippocampus, an various other parts of the brain. Upon intoxication, these decelerated reactions can induce memory loss, loss of motor skills, and a reduction in the body's senses. When alcohol affects the undeveloped brain of a person under 21, extremely detrimental things can occur. Underage drinking has been related to chronic long-term problems such as depression, violence, and suicide. 2.) An elimination of the drinking age would encourage more detrimental behavior among youth. A decrease of the drinking age has been related to the use of illicit drugs among young drinkers. A complete elimination of the drinking age would encourage more you to use narcotics, and at a younger age. It would be irresponsible to condone drinking for those younger than 21 due to the correlation between underage drinking and drug use.
reality shows are good

I respect your view but I believe that they are terrible shows and should be removed they do no good really , they are proven to be fixed some of them , some of them cheat charities out of money and people are now starting to switch off these shows because they realise its not talent these people have an nobody on the show does it is just acting now reality tv is becoming more an more like a rehearsed show with lines and everybody knows the outcome before it happens .
reality shows are good

I believe you are running off the point a bit .... I firmly believe these shows are nothing but good you just have to accept my view like it or not I personally also would never take a chance for fame or glory sure it brings money and everything that goes with that , but there are people in this world such as myself who like to have a nice quite life away from a watching eye of the world . these shows do not help children deal with criticism in anyway at all . they encourage people to be something that they are not . prove of this is that I mean imagine 50-100 years ago children back then do you think this helped them with criticism? no because it wasn't around and look at that generation of people they faced most likely the biggest amount of cricitism from their noramlly strict parents yet became a very mentaly tougher generation dealing with it and not worrying about what others say .Now i know these shows can be OK sometimes but i personally am not afan they can bring nothing but annoyance to my living room ... watching talentless people win is rather annoying and oen last thing , you sound like the majority of people have a chance of winning this ? for every winner there is about at least a couple of million people who have failed at it ..
reality shows are good

just tell me one thing would you run away leaving your only opportunity to fame and glory....if you do that,well it'll be the preposterous act i've ever seen after all who like to run his future.... Even afterb that these shows provide a platform for children to showcase their talent & and learn to face criticism...after all who doesn't face criticism....but even then you think that criticism is not for greater good;the stop criticising your parents for not understanding your better part..stop criticising the system for being ineffective.because having no criticism provides a backway to run away from our fallacies..i don't know what possesses you to say that these shows are not good but i hope that they stayed long enough so that many &many more American idols(or Indian idols) got to live their dreams to fame and........................ glory.
reality shows are good

These reality tv shows are nothing but a sham these days . contenders compete not using talents but sob stories to gain votes that do not exist as you may have seen in the news the recent fixing of certain shows I am in no doubt that the votes by the public are simply charged for their vote and the vote is then not counted . it is far to easy to become famous these days back a long time ago you had to earn fame with a genuine talent and not simply try your luck with a tv show and enter even though you have no talents what so ever yet still win due to how popular the person is based on their personality or their sad storey .
College should be entirely government funded.

College's should be entirely government funded. The reason behind this is that a lot of people in the United States can't afford to go to college. Most universities have a tuition that would put most students in a lot of debt after they graduate. Not being able to go to college not only effects the person immediately but their whole life. If everyone was able to go to college the crime rate would decrease because of the fact that people will be involved in their courses and not in the streets.
College should be entirely government funded.

Funding a student's education can cause a student to stress out when it comes to grades. Speaking as a student who receives financial aid I am constantly stressed out when i get the outcome of my grades during the semester. I never know if I will pass the class or not. Finaical Aid has always given me a problem when it comes to receiving my grants. I always have to fill out papers which stress me out even more. I think the government should fund programs for students who need help not financialy
Internet makes people less confident.

So many claims, yet so little evidence...You've cited only one source (match.com) for a claim that, if proven true, would more likely help my case than yours: that one in every six relationships starts online. This means a little less than twenty percent of couples (who perhaps would otherwise have not found suitable partners) begin by meeting, conversing, and flirting over the internet. I'm unsure why you think this means the internet makes people less confident, but if anything, it seems to suggest that the internet makes people more confident.You say the internet causes people to be less social, but this is the opposite of true: for some, the internet serves as a medium to meet a wider array of people than those who just so happen to live within walking or driving distance. The internet has made people more social in the same way telphones did decades ago.Without real evidence to support my opponent's claims, he will not have met his burden of proof in this debate. However, all we've gotten so far is mere speculation (and illogical speculation at that).
Internet makes people less confident.

According to the match.com commercials, one in every six relationships now starts online. May be not you, but most of them are afraid of hearing the answer, afraid of meeting new people. People become less social, and respectively less confident. It is easier to them to sit in a square room, look on the monitor and immerse themselves in a virtual life. Unfortunately there are no any serenades under the windows, no decent courting and people forget what romance and true love are.
Internet makes people less confident.

Nowadays the majority of people use the Internet almost every day. And sometimes we forget about the time, and sit in front of the screen the whole day. We forget about things we should do and other responsibilities. we watch short videos, funny pictures, read some unnecessary stuff and etc. and that is the cause of our uncertainty in different spheres. There are, unfortunately, no any brave men, who can come up to pretty and start the conversation, people are less confident nowadays. They are afraid of new, unknown people and can't have even normal conversation. Usually they don't have a couple, because they are too shy. And may be this social problem should be solved at the state level.
Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished.

:)Murder Rates:1. My opponent pretty much concedes this point.2. His evidence is weighted in my favor, as it states, "For 2013, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty states was 4.4, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.4. " [1] This trend, in favor of the notion of how the death penalty doesn't deter crime, is consistent with the years that is shows; going back to 2008.3. He also points out that southern states which use capital punishment continue to see an increase in murder rates. Deterring Crime:1. My opponent mentions Pakistan and Bangladesh, and says that they have been successful in deterring crime. Once again, he provides no evidence to support this claim.2. Studies don't show that it deters crime. [2] [3] [4]3. Studies, if anything, prove the opposite. [5]Closure for Families:1. This falls under the moral/inhumanity argument.2. I've shown how this creates a murderous cycle, if you kill all who kill.3. Killing the criminals achieves no end because it isn't a deterrent. [6]4. My opponent claims he is a Christian (I don't doubt this, I am as well). However, his argument is fundamentally flawed from a Christian perspective.5. The Old Testament, was the old law. He says, "whoever sheddeth a man's blood, their blood shall be shed. " This is in the Old Testament. [7]6. The New Testament is the the new law. The mindset of "an eye for an eye" [8] was changed in the new law. [9]7. Besides religion, this would only result in more death among society. (the death penalty obviously KILLS another person)8. Furthermore, life in prison costs less, and is a more humane alternative. [10]Conclusion: My opponent has dropped a lot of my arguments, and not provided evidence that supported any part of his case. On the other hand, I have provided a plethora of evidence to give credibility to my stance. Sources:[1] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] . http://users.nber.org...(SLR).pdf[3] . http://articles.latimes.com...;[4] . http://www.washingtonpost.com...[5] . http://escholarship.org...[6] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[7] . http://biblehub.com...[8] . http://biblehub.com...[9] . http://biblehub.com...[10] . http://www.newsweek.com...Thank you for this debate, kylar, it has been exhiliarating, engaging, and enjoyable. :)