BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governments should value economic equality before prosperity

Political motions are always divisive, but this one lies right at the top of the scale. It's two years after the recession and now, in the American election, a lot of what the international media is showing is a great argument among the presidential hopefuls as to how America can be made to be as prosperous as possible. The question is - is that even desirable? Or should the governments of America and other countries aim primarily for a more equal distribution of wealth, given how some Americans are in greater poverty than ever before, while others seem only to get wealthier and wealthier?DefinitionsSince the motion is incredibly vague, let me define my idea of "economic equality". Economics is all about standard of living. Having an equal standard of living means that we get fair compensation for our work, and that we get work to do. This involves three processes. First, work must be fair, so employers can't discriminate or treat their employees badly. Second, work must provide adequate compensation to all employees to allow them to have a standard of living, but not so much that a few elites can control access to certain commodities. This is where stuff like minimum wage laws and progressive taxation comes into play, which in many ways are the most important things governments can do. Third, it means governments must do all they can to fight unemployment (I suspect we'll find some common ground here) insofar as people are able to work. In a nutshell, economic equality means we all have equal access to a standard of living, regardless of things like our backgrounds or what suburb we live in. I intend to justify all of this when the debate starts - I merely put it here so that there is no confusion over what I am actually arguing for in this debate.My opponent is free to define how exactly he measures prosperity. Tautological definitions should be ignored.The question in this debate is not whether a prosperous society or an equal society is to be preferred. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. The question is which option governments should generally encourage (notwithstanding exceptional circumstances), in cases where a policy decision can only work in favor of one or the other. As per usual in debating, all other words have their standard dictionary definitions.StructurePlease only accept this debate if you're RoyLatham. If you're not Roy, then do not accept this debate. He and I have been wanting to do this debate for some time.The burden of proof is mine. This is an acceptance/definitions/setup round. Round four is a summary round, and should be used primarily to summarise the debate, as opposed to doing things like bring up new arguments. The debate is generally structured exactly like any other DDO debate.Good luck!
How was the universe created? (Pro: God)

I believe the universe was created by a divine, omnipotent, supreme being, "God. " I will be using St. Anslem's ontological argument and the basis of St. Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs of God. (I will not be using the argument from intelligent design, because I realize the flaws in it [that, however small the chance, the universe was created to sustain life against all odds]. However, I will say that it is HIGHLY coincidental and sides closer with a God than no God. ) Ontological Argument: 1. God is defined as all powerful. 2. Existing is more powerful than not existing. 3. Because existing is more powerful, God exists. Explanations: 1. God is defined as all powerful. If he is not omnipotent, then he isn't God. Simple as that. 2. Existing is obviously more powerful than not existing. A pitbull who exists would have a lot more powerful of a bite than a pitbull that does not exist. Throwing a rock that exists at someone would hurt a lot morethan throwing a rock that doesn't exist. Certainly, existence=power. 3. Because God-is defined as all powerful, he must thus exist, because an existing God is more powerful than a non-existing one. By merely thinking that God exists, you confirm his existence. Five Proof Arguments: 1. The universe and all of existence is here. Science has already proven that it has no been in existence forever, and thus is had a definite start. How was the universe created? By the multiverse? How was the multiverse created? A multiverse cannot create itself because it is not sentient, and if it is, than it can be considered a God. There must be a primary mover for a movement, a thing cannot move itself. Therefore we can assume that the prime mover is God. Than who moved God? move: go in a specified direction or manner; change position. cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. effect: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause. God doesn't need a mover, he has always been moving by definition. A cause gives rise to an action, but by definition, God has never had a rise. He always has been, always will be. Thank you for reading. I tried to keep it short.
How was the universe created? (Pro: God)

ATTENTION: Do not accept this debate unless you have a theory of the universe's creation. "Not knowing yet" is not a theory. I will be arguing that an omnipotent being (God) created the universe, you will be arguing for another method. Burden of Proof is on both sides, and voters will judge by who has the best arguments and counter-arguments. R1: Acceptance and proposition R2: Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals to Rebuttals
Education in America

I don't think that it is technically the school's fault. I think that these government issued programs are preventing students and teachers from reaching their full potential. I definitely agree that students need to try a bit harder and extend their horizons, but the government is pushing them too far. Every time another day is added on to the school year, another hour to the school day, it just stresses the thought of "I can't do it" or "this is too much". I think that students would enjoy learning more if their entire lives were not as stressful or chock full as they are now. I think that generally speaking, I am saying that public schools are doing what they can, but government is making things worse for students and teachers. The students are learning too much, too fast. It's impossible for them to manage the amount of tests, time, and homework that is required from them due to the active programs. I think that the government needs to slow down, and take smaller steps towards advancing their students.
Education in America

The educational process in america is not uniformly bad, but it is under attack. Programs like the IB organization represent the best in education attainment, but it is international in scope. http://www.ibo.org... What is happening in this country is that a group known as ALEC has formulated a strategic plan to turn public school funding into private corporate profits. http://www.commondreams.org... They are succeeding because of a general lack of interest on the part of the public, a well funded program of denigrating the public school systems, and a combination of paranoia and selfishness encouraged by far right wing political groups. Despite all of that, the public school systems still do a fairly adequate job of educating our youth.
Education in America

I am concerned about recent changes to education. I fear that certain programs such as Common Core, Middle Years Program, International Baccalaureate, and No Child Left Behind are ruining education. Children are not in school to take tests and give reports. They are in school to learn and ready themselves for the world. Also, I would like to suggest a change to the starting time and length of the average school day. Children are spending too much time in school. They are sitting in school for 9 hours a day, with a lunch break of only 45 minutes at the MAX. (Minimum is 20 minutes). I think that this can contribute to obesity. The starting times of the school days can affect work ethic, grades, appetite, and even mood and social skills. The human brain does not completely engage itself until 10:00 am, MANY studies have proved this. Schools are starting at 7:00 am, causing young kids to have to wake up at unreasonable hours. An average time is 5:00 am. I think that there needs to be regulations regarding these topics. It would affect our kids greatly, in a positive way. I think that they would stop complaining and work towards goals with a better attitude.
Education in America

"Politicians have no knowledge of how to teach children, it's simply a race to the top." Actually, it's worse than that. Many of the politicians who are involved in education issues are members of ALEC. They don't want public schools to be successful. The same strategies that got America hooked on bottled water are being used to give people negative impressions of public schools. The Common Core standards are part of that. The goal of common core is to prepare kids for a life of work, but ignores educating them to be economically efficient consumers or rational and informed voters. As for stress, there is good stress and bad stress. Good stress is the competition for success that we all must face, and so it's proper for schools to inflict stress, but also to teach how to deal with and use stress to one's advantage. Bad stress is when the rules keep changing during the game, and it affects teachers more than students.
Education in America

Your perspective on education needs to be wider than just what goes on in a classroom. Education is more than just teaching, it's deciding what to teach and how to teach it, and also, who will teach it. "I think that these government issued programs are preventing students and teachers from reaching their full potential." Some are, but most aren't. The federal govt mostly provides funding with few strings attached. The craziness comes at the state and local levels, where politics often overpowers common sense and established good practices. Nobody at the federal level wants to teach creationism, for instance.
There is a Secular Slant to DDO

Thank you for that kind response. Secularism appeals to pretty much everybody in this multi-cultured western society because everyone can easily agree with it. Sure, you can be passionate about your religion but how can you say yours is right? Speaking as an Evangelical Protestant Christian, I see a lot of hate from believing the Bible as it is. A lot of things like the Global Flood and six, twenty four hour days of are not taken literally because of this secularism that is pushed on our culture. I'll give you some examples later. I just want to make a point and not count us out just because we're not Atheists. We can be smart and academic, too. Much of this has to do with the fact that science has been taken over by secularists. People who come from broken homes tend to rate science as being more important than other careers. The harder the science, the bigger the percentage of Atheists according to the website GodandScience.org which was using a study by the University of California. It's not about who's smarter or more qualified. [1] There are some biases related to texts of the Bible and what people believe is correct science. First of all, many people on this site tend to think that Christians should accept the Theory of Evolution. Only 33 people, including myself, choose Creationism over the secular validating Theory of Evolution, out of 144 when I posted this. [2] 56% voted for Christians to accept the Theory of Evolution even though it fundamentally violates Scripture. That includes everyone on this site of the possibility of voting. [3] However, according to Gallup, 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism. [4] Second of all, there's the interpretation of the flood described in Genesis. The literal interpretation of that flood only got 17% of the votes on this website. [5] According to an ABC News Poll picked up by the Washington Times, 61% of Americans believe in the flood account really did happen. [6] My point is not to believe not believe something because it is part of a faith or just because scientist interpret the evidence against it. Secularism is not default or neutral. [1]http://www.godandscience.org... [2]http://www.debate.org... [3]http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.gallup.com... [5] http://www.debate.org... [6] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
There is a Secular Slant to DDO

I am happy to see my opponent return to the debate. My opponent has indeed only proven my point. With a largely secular audience, any argument from a religious perspective would not appeal as well as another. I am newer to this site, but look at my debates, unless the subject is by definition religious, I don't bring religion or scripture into it at all. If I was speaking in from of a group of nuns, I would have a Bible, Papal Encyclicals, and "the Lives of the Saints" on hand. I have read some of the debates by the members you have listed and their arguments are impeccable. I really just don't see a slant. Just that religious debaters seem to forget who their audience is.
There is a Secular Slant to DDO

No, I don't. I've been really busy with school. One day, I studied all day. I can prove it to you that there is a secular slant to DDO. The top 4 debaters are Secular with unrealistic winning percentages. (http://www.debate.org...). First, Roy Latham, he's an Atheist. Winning percentage: 94.06%. http://www.debate.org... Second, Danielle, she's Secular. Winning Percentage: 88.47% http://www.debate.org... Third, Keptin, he's Agnostic. Winning Percentage: 95.57% http://www.debate.org... Fourth, JustCallMeTarzan, he's an Atheist. Winning Percentage: 88.37%. Then there's a person at fifth who's a Sciencetologist. Sixth, there's TheSkeptic, who's an Atheist. Winning Percentage 84.81% http://www.debate.org... Only number seven and eight are Christian. (Ore_Ele, and thett3) The only time Christians or Fundamentalist Christians win arguments is when the Secular Progressive has an EXTREMELY bad argument like in this debate: http://www.debate.org... or here: http://www.debate.org... On the opinion section, "Do You Have a Religion?" only 36% say yes (http://www.debate.org...) when according to several polls that's not true of the normal population. Only 21% said they did not have a religion which in this case means secular according to Gallup. http://www.gallup.com... According to the Pew Research Center, it's only 16.1% are unaffiliated (secular.) http://religions.pewforum.org... Another opinion section piece is whether religion is rational. Only 33% said yes. http://www.debate.org... The final piece of evidence is this opinion poll: "Is religion necessary in the modern world?" Only 32% said yes. http://www.debate.org... No matter what the arguments are, Christians aren't treated fairly in this secular world or this site.
There is a Secular Slant to DDO

First you stated "There is an unfair slant on DDO against fundamental Christian theists. Look at the top four debaters: they're all secular. I'd also like to point out that a lot of debates involving secularism vs. theism, the secularist won despite bad arguments. I theorize that many people interested in debating are more likely to be secularists rather than atheists." Even if there can be shown to be a slant, that does not, in and of itself, mean that it is unfair. That the top four debaters are secular (I am taking this as fact for the purpose of this debate, I did not check it.) does not prove a slant especially because you seem to concede that debaters themselves are more likely to be secular, and therefore, you will likely see more of them on the leaderboard. You stated "The problem is one, you can't prove Atheism because it is a universal negative. In other words if God didn't exist, you'd have to know everything, which is impossible to prove." This has nothing to do with the debate topic, but I will address it. You do not need to know everything to prove a negative. I can prove that I am not dead by listening to my pulse. I can prove that I am not African-American with a DNA test. While I myself have never seen conclusive evidence that God does not exist, and I fact believe very strongly in God, it doesn't mean that it is impossible. Furthermore, secular arguments will appeal to a largely secular crowd, which you are likely to find on a debate site. It Is the mark of a good debater to take into account who his/her audience is and to appeal to them accordingly. Therefore, if there is a slant, which you have not yet proven, I do not believe it is unfair.
There is a Secular Slant to DDO

There is an unfair slant on DDO against fundamental Christian theists. Look at the top four debaters: they're all secular. I'd also like to point out that a lot of debates involving secularism vs. theism, the secularist won despite bad arguments. I theorize that many people interested in debating are more likely to be secularists rather than atheists. The problem is one, you can't prove Atheism because it is a universal negative. In other words if God didn't exist, you'd have to know everything, which is impossible to prove. [1] The next problem is that because you have faith in something, you're automatically wrong because faith is stupid. The Christian faith is well founded, but that's another debate. You can still be a philosopher. The definition of a philosopher is "a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields" according to Dictionary.com. [2] We have basic faith that there are other minds present, this world is real, your lover really loves you and science experiments are predictions of the future. [3] Secularists are also guilty of the ad hominem logic. They attack arguments, organizations, and people because they are Christian. There is a double standard because Secular Progressive arguments, organizations, and people are considered true and immune from the Ad Hominem logic. [4] For instance.... "Oh, the Family Research Council is a Conservative Christian Organization and they have an agenda. Most of what they say is a lie. However, Think Progress is true because they are Secular Progressive." Secularism is also considered a "neutral" position because it is free from theism. Simply taking a position on something doesn't make it neutral. [5] If someone says that their point is true because the other one is false without giving positive evidence for that other position, that is the false dilemma fallacy. [6] Simply saying that your position of Atheism is true because there's no good evidence for religion is shifting the burden of proof. [7] Atheists say that they are open minded, but deny that God exists. As mentioned before, that's scientifically unprovable and not open minded. [8] [9] [1]http://carm.org... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://ingles.homeunix.net... [4]http://www.nizkor.org... [5]http://creation.com... [6]http://www.nizkor.org... [7]http://www.nizkor.org... [8]http://gretachristina.typepad.com... (I'm using part of the article in the debate) [9]http://creation.com...
THW: make sex education a mandatory part of the secondary/middle school curriculum.

The motion is "THW: make sex education a mandatory part of the secondary/middle school curriculum. " The format is as follows: R1: Acceptance only. R2 & R3: main body of argument and rebuttal. R4: Rebuttal and summation. No new arguments may be introduced, and voters should ignore new arguments made in R4. Those considering accepting should note the 4,000 character limit.
Homo sexuals

You say that it wouldn't be beneficial to society, but straight marriage isn't either. It doesn't directly affect anyone except the people getting married. The families are, unless they don't want any part of their marriage. So, how would it affect society either way? I brought up the point of love because marriage is based on love. And it is commonly a man and woman, which is why the definition says man and woman. Other words have changed their meanings such as meat, which was all food.
Homo sexuals

First of all, it would be whole society, not hole society. Just thought I would point that out. Same sex marriage should be aloud. If two people are in love, they should be able to get married. Love, is not gender specific. The definition of love is an intense feeling of deep affection. Marriage is just a legal term. You say that it would set a bad example for their adopted kid, but that is not always true. It may have an effect, but the kid has a heart of their own, to decide who to love.
Homo sexuals

Same sex marriage should not be allowed because this would be a change in the hole society. God created a man and a women to be united, not a man and a man or a women and a women. When the same sexual partners get married they would want to adopt a child, this could be a bad example for them because then they will want to follow their steps. The marriage is the union of a man and a women, this is why i think same sex marriage should not be allowed.
All zoos should be banned

I am going to continue pretending that you have not submitted to my superior intellectual power. It is now time to rip apart your arguments. Your point about animals being proven to live for less time in captivity is completely false. Take the African Lion. In the wild it lives about 15 to 18 years old. This seems a good life for a cat. In captivity they live 25 to 30 years!!! That's roughly ten years more. In the modern zoological park there is next to no animal cruelty anywhere. Again, returning to these smaller, often third-world zoos. These zoos do bad. I'm not going to lie about that. But the good of many other zoos cannot be outweighed by these. In our day and age, stereoyping is often talked about in schools and other places. Is judging all zoos as horrible places for animals to live not the exact same thing? And if it is then shouldn't we all do what we can to end this stereotypical image of the modern day zoo.
All zoos should be banned

This house believes that we should not even stop to consider banning zoos on a national scale, let alone a global one. This question is one that has been contemplated since the first menagerie in 3500 BCE yet we are still trying to figure out the answer. But, without question, zoos are a vital part of conservation. They were not in the past, but now, in 2017, without zoos, there would be next to no wildlife left. This may seem farfetched but allow me to expand. Many children of today are looking at a career in zoology and marine biology. They are for the pandas and the lions of the world. But would they really care if they had never got the chance to see any of these animals? When living in the USA, a family can hardly afford to fly out on holiday to South Africa to see lions in their wild state. So what do they do? They go on down to the city zoo and see them in their habitat there. The idea of creating large wildlife parks is ultimately the best way forward, but it is entirely unfeasible. Many of the governments in third world countries cannot look after their humans well enough to be able to take a look back at their animal populations. Take Rwanda for example. They just came off the back of a large civil war. They have been struggling to make a comeback since and although huge steps of progress have been made, they are still concentrating on their humans rather than their vast array of animals. This is why we need zoos, of which their exhibits more often than not, closely resemble their natural habitats, to bring animals back from the brink of extinction. However, having said that, there are many zoos which do need looking at. Namely those in third world countries that cannot keep their animals in good condition. These zoos need to be looked at but more of those later in the debate.