BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Schools Should Make it a Requirement to be Able to Teach Arts and Music to Their Students

Right on then. Thank you for your timely response. Regarding the Resolution It is clear from both the title and the resolution, All schools should be required to have the ability to teach arts and music to the students. I will not hear any more on this issue since I did in fact give you the chance to draw and you didn't. So we shall continue. Now on to your arguments.... "Some schools...maybe have other practices." Seems like you really don't know which schools or practices your talking about. Please be more specific as there is not one religion or culture I know of that is against music and the arts. "There isn't a need an (of) artistic musical skill in the market." While statistics prove the opposite and for two main reasons. 1.) Music improves brain development as multiple studies show. https://www.google.ca... http://www.pbs.org... 2.)Music helps the economy by the money it makes. http://www.nashville.gov... http://www.ifpi.org... Therefore since music benefits the children and benefits the economy there is a demand for music in the market and there always will be, and for the same reason schools should allow children the right to be able to indulge in the arts. "Band and choir are not under attack" Although this debate is not primarily focused on whether or not music is under attack I will show you that it is under attack and music in schools is slowly drying up. http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.nafme.org... Really this adds nothing to your case because even if it wasn't in danger this debate is not about that. The debate is about if schools should continue to teach the arts. "Put more focus on extra activities like debate/computer programming." Brownie points for your support of debates! However again you are going off on a tangent and we should stick to what this debate is about. It's like if I made a debate, "Are Cookies Good For You?" and you came in with an argument, "Frosted flakes are great!" In the same sense debates and computer programming aren't pertaining to the arts. The arts were here long before debate teams and programming and has one of the oldest histories of mankind. http://www.historyfacts.info... It is also the most prevalent or widespread form of expression in the world. Every culture known has some form of music. http://kidsmusiccorner.co.uk... You agree that music is important in the world and has it's p[lace in society. It is for these reasons that music should continue to be an option at school. In Conclusion.... Music and the Arts is proven to improve studies and decrease dropout rates. It also plays an important role in the culture of the human race. For all these reasons I believe it is clear that music and the arts should continue to be taught at school. I look forward to my opponents response.
All Schools Should Make it a Requirement to be Able to Teach Arts and Music to Their Students

Alrighty let's get down to work then shall we? My resolution and title are clearly explained in the first round. "It is my belief that we shouldn't stop giving students the option to take these course at school." I have many reasons for this. 1. The Fine Arts education programs are mandatory in countries that rank consistently as the highest for math and science test scores, these include Japan, Hungary, and the Netherlands. National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, "Re-Investing in Arts Education: Winning America"s Future Through Creative Schools." The President"s Committee on the Arts and Humanities 2. Students who study the arta are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement and three times more likely to be awarded for school attendance. "Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education", OECD Publishing, 2011. 3.The "No Child Left Behind Act" enforces that The Arts (music, art, foreign language, etc.) are a core academic subject. U.S. Department of Education, "No Child Left Behind, A Toolkit for Teachers." 4.Many studies have reached a consensus that curricular and extracurricular art studies and activities help keep high-risk dropout students in school. National School Boards Association. "Prediction: Identifying potential dropouts." The Center for Public Education. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org.... 5.New brain research shows music not only improves skills in math and reading, but it promotes creativity, social development, personality adjustment, and self-worth. Weinberger, Norman M.. "The Music in Our Minds." Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, University of California. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://nmw.bio.uci.edu... In conclusion... For these reasons it is evident that schools should be required to teach music and the arts at school. I turn the debate back over to con.
All Schools Should Make it a Requirement to be Able to Teach Arts and Music to Their Students

I guess i win then since my opponent concedes. I went by his resoultion and he's upset becuase he can't address why music/arts should be required rather then optional. Next you should probaly post a good sized argument the first round so people can understand what you are advicating for. It's hard to fully contemplate what you are trying to say if you post 3 sentences for an argument.
All Schools Should Make it a Requirement to be Able to Teach Arts and Music to Their Students

I agree with your definitions. My opponent introduced what he will argue about and now I will do so as well. I agree arts and music shouldn't be removed from schools, however I will be advocating because of the limited market for these skills (mainly art), the time they take up (mainly band/orchestra) , and the limited demand they can't be required. I will have a few side arguments as well
All Schools Should Make it a Requirement to be Able to Teach Arts and Music to Their Students

While many schools are stopping the art programs such as music, drama and art it is my belief that we shouldn't stop giving students the option to take these classes at school. It is therefore my belief that "Schools should make it a requirement to teach arts and music to their students" Definitions School: an institution for educating children. https://www.google.ca... Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. https://www.google.ca... Requirement: a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition. https://www.google.ca... Able:having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something. https://www.google.ca... Fine Arts: a type of art (such as painting, sculpture, or music) that is done to create beautiful things http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rules 1. No kritiks/semantics 2. Breaking rules = loss 3. You accept definitions 4. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate. R1-4: Arguments/Rebuttals R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
Every non homosapien non white non male non republican should become slaves forced into hard labor

We all know that every that back in the good old days the hard working white male republicans dominated the world completely. Under their reign, everyone else is a slave. You would have to be a non educated dumbass to not know that much more progress was made with slaves doing hard labor 24/7. I know for a fact we should bring back slaves and white elitist will realize this soon. The world has many problems and the only way to solve is to have people work their whole lives for zero pay. The world is a tough place and their are superior species and races in it. You are either pro slave, or pro devastation. P.S. If you are against slaves, It"s pretty obvious you do not fall under the classification I mentioned in the title.
Every non homosapien non white non male non republican should become slaves forced into hard labor

My opponent forfeits the final round. It is clear his/her views are extremely unfair, unethical and discriminatory. These are things humanity should seek to solve not make worse. The economic and social disasters my opponents views would cause would be colossal. It would likely start a civil war if any government tried to enforce these rules although you would assume the absurdity of them would see the general population rise up and overthrow the government. The key thing is no ones life improves under my opponents ideas. Even the miniscule proportion of the worlds population he/she seeks to empower would suffer under this system that I view as neo Nazism. I don't think their is much to debate here. My opponents idea is clearly illogical and completely flawed.
Every non homosapien non white non male non republican should become slaves forced into hard labor

What evidence do you have to support your theory? How will your discrimination actually help the economy? How do you propose implementation of these policies? So you suggest white American people who support the republican party can just choose to take control of the world and enslave everyone else? It's just fascist fantasy. The rest of the world wouldent let it happen. No white American republicans would want to try this as even if they thought it was a good idea they would know it would be impossible. The US government would soon control any extremist neo Nazi group anyway. Proposing to enslave 99% of the population is improbable fantasy but supposing it did happen the economy would be 90% smaller than today. Living conditions would be appaling, standards of living decrease, life expectancy reduce, medical care non existent and would see humanity go back to a 1800s existence. It is quite simply a terrible idea. How would these few non enslaved people exist, what would they do? What would they get their dozens of personal slaves to do? I suppose 17th century farming to feed themselves. There would be no point making anything or building anything as their is no market economy for people to purchase or use things. What is the aim of your idea? All it achieves is the destruction of humanity. Why make 99% of people miserable? I doubt the alleged 1% would enjoy life. They couldent even have a wife. They would have to submit their daughter's to slavery? How would you prove who is a republican anyway? Everyone would claim to be one. This idea is awful in every way imaginable.
Every non homosapien non white non male non republican should become slaves forced into hard labor

It may be racist, sexist, and unethical; however, it is the only way for the human species to advance. We don"t live in a fantasy world where everyone can live a happy easy life. As of right now we are burning through our resources and making no progress. A system where a few commands the most will increase progress massively. You can"t argue with that. It will be a tyranny world of hard work, but it will benefit the future generations.
Question of Intervention in Regional Conflicts

I agree with my opponent on the fact that war never leads to anything greater in a short term, but in a long term it can mean a lot. For this we can review history of United States of America and borders of modern states, especially the anomaly of 21th century: Israel. War has been said to be part of politics when all other means are depleted. If there is on-going conflict, it is hard to find solution via non-violent means as opponent suggests. Therefor intervenetion is required, in order to pose greater power which two belligerents recognize. This way they can be persuaded to end fighting, shortening the time of conflict and misery coming from war. The threat of war can be preemptive lowered by bringing outside military close by, encouraging non-violent solving. My opponent is also saying that power corrupts, but is not recognizing that it can very well be the leading factor for conflict in the first place. When there is inhuman behavior, such in the case of Bosnian War, intervention is justified by all means. If man does not act as a judge in the agreed context of international laws, it will enable even greater misery from war and turmoil.
Question of Intervention in Regional Conflicts

Greed has influenced man to exploit the name of imposing rules and morality, for his personal greed and benefit. Taking the argument of the respected contender, many countries have gone into battle with regional participants and in the end brought more problems to themselves. History showed that some 'civilized' nations wanted to control oil resources more than their want for global peace. Non Violence has proved itself in many events such as the Reformation of The South African Constitution, the Independence of India. If these great events were solved by non violence then it is impossible for one to say that non violence cannot be used. Man cannot be a judge. Man has his greed and lust overpowering his mind, and in that mental state he cannot be placed as a judge. Hence no countries should judge situations, conquer other nations, extend hegemony and then occupy its oil or natural reserves.
Question of Intervention in Regional Conflicts

Hello, I'll take a go with this. Conflicts are much broader and affecting in more areas than it may seem on surface, especially on the time of global economy. Thus the headline that conflicts are regional conflicts does not mean that their effects are limited to specific region. Same has been argumented by US for the Vietnam War, as its effects were not seen regional, but much broader and far affecting. Also, it is a very old habit to impose influence to other inferior countries. By definition, you are not "powerful" if you do not have any say on global matters. Therefore, in a long run country wants to stay as powerful by imposing rules and changing societies which interferes, or appears to interfere in affairs of powerful country. Lastly, non-violent channels are usually not an option, as it was seen in WW2 by occupied countries. Back then the "political hemisphere" was dictated by occupation forces, leading to situation where you had no other choice than violently oppose. And, as you already suggested, large powers has nowadays means to impose power threw its influence and economy, but it also has an option to impose rules with occupational force, like in the case of Falklands War. Intervening is therefore a must; in order to prevent escalation of conflicts and keep "status quo", if it favors the powerful countries.
Question of Intervention in Regional Conflicts

In the world, we have been faced with a lot of conflicts in areas around the world. Many of these conflicts have been caused because of interventions by large powers into the affairs of smaller countries. Countries and societies have been destroyed by foreign invaders who entered the nations with the claim of changing societies and bringing reformation. Although there has been great reforms and societal changes, in the long run these societies have lost their culture and have been assimilated into the hands of the invaders. What makes this a concern is that some elements who have the patriotic concerns for their lands, form violent groups instead of using non violent measures. And this affects the world. This is why countries must not intervene in the affairs of other nations.
DeathPenalty

The problem with NOT instating the death penalty is that the legal system would actually gives incentive to criminals that have not yet been caught and imprisoned. If a criminal kills someone, there is no reason why they should not commit more murders/crimes because they know that the greatest punishment they will receive is life in prison (which they would probably already have from the first murder). For example : "The highest murder rate in Houston, Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) and has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential." This is significant evidence in favor of having the death penalty in our country.
DeathPenalty

I believe that the death penalty is not a reasonable punishment because 90 percent of the people sentenced to death are poor and cannot afford their own lawyer. The homicide rates in the states with the death penalty is almost double of those without the death penalty because it cheapens the value of life. http://www.religioustolerance.org... If criminals are no different than the people who abide by the law, why should we treat them any differently. Therefore what makes a person capable of receiving the death penalty? Some people disobey the law but aren't given such a harsh consequence. North Carolina alone spends $2.16 million per execution more than the costs of a non-death penalty murder case. So if death penalties are so expensive then why aren't we trying to keep them to a minimum? https://www.msu.edu...
DeathPenalty

I think that it is difficult to get conclusive evidence either way, but I feel that it is rational to assume that people are less likely to commit felonies when they know that losing their lives may be the consequence. To back up my opinion, I found research on the social theory of Deterrence. The Deterrence Theory states that "criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals "rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere."[11] Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative." (The Heritage Foundation) Recent studies have found that for each execution there are 18 fewer murders (Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University) As a credible source, I think that these statistics are hard to avoid and show a very real decrease in murders when linked to the death penalty.
DeathPenalty

I found that the statistics regarding taxpayer money was correct but studies show that capital punishment might not be a deterrent of crime. A lot of times the statistics regarding deterrence are extrapolated and are not really representative of population and the lives that the deterrence claims to save. Here is an excerpt from a credible journal on the subject; "We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility." (The Economists' Voice, April 2006).
DeathPenalty

I understand the concern for taxpayer money, but in reality the average cost of keeping a prisoner in the prison system every year (not on death row) is $22,000 and over a lifetime that adds up to an average of 1.5 million dollars per prisoner. This is an exceptionally larger number than the average $44,000 a year for a death row prisoner who will eventually be executed. So taxpayers would actually be saving money in the long run if the death penalty is in place. Another pro in favor of the death penalty is the ability to deter future crime because if people are aware that the death penalty is a real consequence for crime, they are less likely to commit crimes likely to receive capital punishment.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Con how is the burden of proof on me to prove something can't come from nothing? That is like proving there is no life on other planets. Common sense experience shows that if you have nothing you will get nothing. Science requires observation and empirical evidence we can all see. How is your quantum fluctuations theory science? The particles in quantum fluctuation could very well be coming from something as you admit, and that is more logically sound than. The basis for my argument is Logic, and logic proves that something can't come from nothing. What you call science is not science it is only theory. There is no proof anything can come from nothing. There is no proof that absolute nothingness exists in the first place also. Also I don't believe God created the universe out of nothing. I believe God is infinite intelligent energy and out of energy God created all matter. There is a lot of fine tuning in the universe and life so there has to be an intelligent designer. The universe couldn't be infinitely old because if there was an infinite past there would be no now, it is like if I had to kill a duck but I had to ask the person behind me if I can kill it and he had to ask the person behind him, and on and on, if that was infinite I would never get the chance to kill the duck What you are saying is only theory that Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krauss made up there is no proof absolute nothingness exists or that something can come from nothing. It is logically impossible and no one has demonstrated it to be true. Out of nothing only nothing comes it is as simple as that
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Con uses Quantum mechanics to justify something coming from nothing and something coming into existence without a cause, it has been argued that if you think you know quantum theory you don't know quantum theory (Richard Feynman)also quantum fluctuations may be coming from something (some hidden energy field or something not nothing) also you are quoting stephen hawking's book the Grand Design which was probably more for money and fame that stephen hawking wrote that book. If something can come from nothing or something come without a cause than why not you show us? My argument on abiogenesis was also used to prove that point. Life cannot come from non life and something can't come from nothing, those are observable and logical facts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that something can come from nothing, until you can do that we only have one logical explanation to the origin of the universe and that is some intelligent designer. Make something come from nothing if you are truthful. Quantum physics won't do because it hasn't been fully understood and as Richard Feynman said you don't know it. I am arguing with you in terms of common sense not hypothetical quantum weirdness. Something can't come from nothing, and it never happens and it has never been proven empirically that objects come from nothing (why don't stars of planets come from nothing why only virtual particles? How do you know they don't come from something invisible either?) Also if t=0 at the Beginning of the Big bang how did t= 1, 2, or 3 after the big bang. Logically speaking how can something come without a cause. Time is a dimension and string theory suggests there are other dimensions how do you know there isn't an entity existing on a dimension beyond time who created the universe? The universe can't be infinite because then we won't be here, it must have a creator, if not make something come from nothing