BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
english should be our official language

1. We are not debating illegal immigration, only if the US should have language or not --> True the resolution doesnt state illegal immigration but as my premises state, illegal immigration and the official language are intrinsically connected 2. Why stop people from coming to the US --> If you read the evidence it would show you that immigrtion leads to over population which leads to ecological disasters. 3. People wont support us --> This links directly to my argument so Ive pretty much won all links and the impacts of the round Our allies --> No warrant that immgiration policy will isolate allies. Plus, most europeans hae official languages as he has specified and we still have NATO and such --> Turn: this will icnrease our european nativist roots which will help strengthen our ies with Europe since we will feel intrincially connected to them 4. Immigrants need to learn the language --> This is irrelevant. Remember the AC argument mostly deals with keeping illegal immigrants out of the country. And as is seen, illegal immigrants arent going out and actively looki for citizenship ==Extensions== He dropped all evidence in the AC dealing with overpopulation. This gives clear reasons why we need to stop the cycle of immigration by instituting a national algnauge which will help foster an "us" and "them" mentality.
Should schools start teaching everyday life stuff, like paying taxes and applying for a job.

I will argue that teaching children and teenagers wonders of taxing system and bill payment is, in fact, impractical; they will learn those skills eventually anyhow and if they are in need of help their parents should be there to support them and act as an extension of the educational system. Furthermore, teaching core subjects (maths, native language, science) is necessary regardless of the career one wish to follow as they touch on a large number of issues such as critical thinking, problem solving and communication which remain relevant for entire lifetime.
Should schools start teaching everyday life stuff, like paying taxes and applying for a job.

I believe that schools should start teaching kids how to do everyday things. For example, paying taxes, applying for a job, paying a bill, ect. If you think about it, school has some pretty irrelevant subjects, like why would I need to know how to do a geometry level equation if I'm going to be a police officer or someone who deals with animals. To add on to the topic, I believe schools should provide classes for those who know what they want to be and keep the core four classes for those who don't know what they want to be.
Should schools start teaching everyday life stuff, like paying taxes and applying for a job.

Yes, there are few schools which for whatever reason decide not to teach life skills to their students, some do it for good reasons, for example being specialized schools that put all their focus elsewhere. Generally speaking, though, if a school does not cover this topic then the student and/or their parent is well aware of that fact and therefore by attending that particular school they choose to do so willingly. As for the laws and rights. Again, all the resources for those that seek them are clearly available on government websites. Constitution booklets can be acquired for free so can all the single laws passed by the government. Schools teach you basic principles of United States Democratic ideology and the country foundations, teaching all 27 amendment rights to school children is not necessary, much better use for the time would be teaching children the American culture and helping them develop pride in their citizenship so once they grow up and are capable of understanding all the legal jargon of American laws they'll not only will learn their rights but they will learn them willingly and with a passion. I believe that the primary reason why so many people do not use their right to vote and do not attend elections is because schools failed and continue to fail teach the importance and responsibility of voting in a democratic system. This suggests that you are in fact somehow right, however, I believe that educating students on their constitutional rights is not the cure to this problem since it's not their lack of knowledge of constitution that is at fault here but rather their lack of responsibility and sense of citizenship that is putting them off voting. Finally, many people find things they learn in school irrelevant. However, you must remember that the educational system is not directed at one person but at the whole spectrum of personalities. For example, you may find great fire of London irrelevant, however, for someone else, this may be a crucial fact to know in order to understand the political situation in London following the years of 1666 while studying history in their spare time in which case they would find that fact extremely relevant. Besides, the great fire of London is the direct reason for London architectural design and the switch in building materials being used to rebuild the city, which is why it's an important and arguably interesting event to learn. There is only so much school can cover, though, a lot of very important historic facts go unheard of, but that's beyond the point. Our educational system isn't perfect, there is plenty of room for improvements. However, due to general nature of said system, there isn't much that can be done without drastic changes which in the current era of "stability" are rather unlikely to occur.
Should schools start teaching everyday life stuff, like paying taxes and applying for a job.

Okay, I'm starting a new point because you have debunked every point I've made so far. The only thing I have to point out so what about the schools that don't have this program that teaches everyday life stuff. You only say "a lot," not the majority or all of the schools. Something that I haven't talked about is what about teach us our rights. Did you know we have 27 amendment rights in the Constitution. I only know ten of them, what about the other 17? While yes, we do live a changing society, and I do agree that this stuff should be taught in the senior year of high school, that's the key phrase, "senior year of high school." Meaning every day life stuff should be taught before seniors go to college, or whatever they pursue. Also, I still stand where I do when talking about stuff in school is irrelevant. To quote my favorite YouTuber. "I know that the Great Fire in London was in 1666, and I also know the the reason leaves are green, is because of a thing called chlorophyll. Why the f*ck do I know this, it's never gonna help me. But while I do know that, I don't know a f*cking thing about how I would pay my taxes if I had decided to start my own business, or know about how to get a mortgage. I haven't got a f*cking clue. However, what I do know is the main news headline from London, 350 f*cking years ago, and I've got this f*cking pot I've made in art class."
Should schools start teaching everyday life stuff, like paying taxes and applying for a job.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. However, I feel like schools should start teaching us this stuff at high school or, at least have someone come in and talk to the students, because this (tax paying, applying for jobs) is going to be a necessity for the future. While I will agree that they can turn to their parents, what if they don't and have to rely on the internet for their needs. Believe me when I say I'm going to have to start resorting to the internet for my geometry needs. Also, you say these core subjects help with communication and problem solving skills, the only thing stopping that is the teachers and the students. There will be students who want to work alone and want to be alone for the majority of school, and there will be teachers who will just give individual assignments and no group projects. But getting back on topic, some of the stuff we learn in school will more likely become irrelevant in the future and become a "The more you know" fact. Basically, what I'm arguing is that there should be some sort of way of knowing how to do everyday things for the future. If school is to prepare us for the future, then why isn't it teaching us more relevant things for life. Or, in simpler terms, teach us what not to do in adulthood. Teach us what to do to keep away from the downsides of adulthood.
The Electoral College

In this debate, I will argue that the way the electoral college currently works is not a good way to elect the president. I would prefer to debate with someone genuinely supportive of the electoral college to better understand both points of view. Please keep the debate civilized and on topic, so don't be partisan on other topics. The burden of proof is shared, meaning that I have to prove that the electoral college is bad, and you have to prove that it is good. Round 1 is going to be acceptance. Try to make your arguments in round 2, and further rounds are going to be rebuttals. Goodluck!
The global warming hockey stick is bad science

My opponent has been plagiarizing "Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming" by Patrick Michaels http://en.wikipedia.org... who seems to have a few ethical problems of his own. And while I'm at it I might as well take a swipe at statisticians as well. Known as actuaries and organized into the Casualty Actuarial Society and the Actuarial Society of America, they are nailing down their standards so that Einstein would have to go back to school. Couple that with an accounting degree and you will have plastic surgeons complaining that they do all the work and take all the risks and don't get paid as much. Many insurance company executives are actuaries. "cambian" http://en.allexperts.com... http://news.surfwax.com... The "Cooling trend" was due to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. Why has my opponent not brought up the closing of the Soviet weather stations? We need the original paper and supporting documentation and that book he read. It's time once again to remind our audience how ridiculous my opponent's definition is of "bad science." Results are all that count, he claims. Correct conclusion=good science. Let me offer my own. Bad science is irresponsible media coverage of science. Looks like a good site: http://www.badscience.net... Statistics as bad science http://www.badscience.net... A new offensive. Books http://www.amazon.com... I haven't read it but it certainly is all the rage. TV http://www.channel4.com... http://www.badscience.net... My opponent is suporting his case with arguments about who said what about Mann's paper and what their qualifications are. The only way we can answer the question is to examine the original paper in its original context. This includes the grant proposal and supporting documents, and the historical situation. How much was paid for this research? Well that's how much research one can expect. The Wikipedia article does prove something. It proves how much effort has been wasted on a ridiculous assertion. My opponent's position: The Hockey Stick Is Bad Science. My position: It is better to address whatever systemic problem it is that gives rise to cases similar to the single case my opponent is describing than to seek to place blame for that single case. Academic dishonesty http://en.wikipedia.org... Now we each take turns supporting our own position and trashing the other guy's. My opponent has not responded to my position. My response to his position and supporting arguments is: We cannot resolve the question be studying what people said about the paper. we have to look at the paper itself. This has not been done.
Male masturbation prevents conscious life and should be treated like abortion

I will neither agree nor disagree with your point. My focus is purely on that in places where abortion is restricted male masturbation should be too. That means if abortion was universally legal, male masturbation would be too. As for a sperm cannot create life on its own I agree, but an embryo will not for sure become conscious life either. Even though consciousness is not reached until around the middle of the pregnancy ,(according to the study talked about here https://1000wordphilosophy.wordpress.com... ) many pro life people state that when issues within the pregnancy which could lead to a still birth abortions are still morally wrong and should be illegal because there is still a slight chance the fetus could survive. I am in no way saying that a sperm should be treated the same as a baby because they are different.. A baby has achieved conscious life and just because a sperm is part of what makes in infant does not make it then conscious. It is the possibility of consciousness that the sperm and an early stage fetus share. Yet I concede that I was not clear enough with my original statement. It should only be associated with laws regarding early or first term abortions.
Male masturbation prevents conscious life and should be treated like abortion

Wouldn't it be better to approach it from the point of view that abortion should not be illegal? Because you see there is a basic difference here. A sperm by itself has no chance of becoming a life. At a certain point an unborn baby does. So instead of adopting a wacky, way-out proposition that is not a valid comparison I would prefer to concentrate on the point of view of ensuring women have a choice to abort.
Male masturbation prevents conscious life and should be treated like abortion

I am not saying that it is bad, I am purely stating that it should be treated the same as abortion. States are pushing for and passing bills that completely ban or make attaining an abortion legally nearly impossible. Oklahoma just passed a bill in which doctors can be charged with a felony for performing an abortion at any point with in the pregnancy. With one of the senators backing the bill stating that a past 20 week ban was not enough since the embryo still had the possibility of sustaining conscious life. Following that logic then a sperm also has the potential to become conscious life, allowing the correct conditions. To help explain myself it might be best for me to explain exactly what I mean by conscious life. I feel the medical definition of conscious helps "Aware; having present knowledge or perception of oneself, one's acts, and surroundings." so I believe conscious life is just that, any animal that has clear conception and perception of not only its surroundings but also of itself. Just as abortion stops the process and does not allow the chance for the conscious life to come to fruition, not allowing the ability for the sperm to meet with an egg is ending the chances for conscious life with those specific sperm. In places in which abortion is becoming an illegal practice male masturbation should be too.
Male masturbation prevents conscious life and should be treated like abortion

Over 500 million sperm are released when an average healthy male ejaculates. Even if only around 200 of those sperm would have reached a females egg, that is 200 cells that could have become a conscious human life if they were not wasted in masturbation. Just as females are choosing to end embryonic life by aborting unwanted pregnancies males are ending zygote life by masturbating.
That the recent partial sale of state assets by New Zealand is regrettable

Professor Rose is, unfortunately, slightly misinformed about a few simple facts. Who owns a company does not dictate how efficient that company is. These are not state-run enterprises, they are state-owned. It's not like Facebook magically became more efficient after their IPO, after all. Moreover, in this particular case, the companies themselves do not have much control over their efficiency. Like I said, it's mostly hydroelectric power, and the company does not tell the rivers how much they should flow. The cost of generation depends on the capital involved. I find it impossible to believe that, for example, wind farm design firms, will come up with more inefficient designs for these companies just because of who their client's owners are. The fact that privitisation does not equal instant efficiency can be seen in Contact Energy, our one fully privitised company in that industry, and also our least efficient by any metric you can name. Therefore the idea that "they aren"t performing at the level they should be" is crazy. These assets are consistently returning over 15% pa, 18.5% for the last couple of years (that's being conservative about returns) and basically beating the economy despite a tough market. There is hardly an industry in the world that has consistently amazing results like these. Even if it were more efficient to privitise though, that does not remove any of the other harms of selling, which are big and damaging. Since electricity prices are so inelastic, any efficiency wouldn't be passed on to consumers anyway, but shareholders. At the end of this debate, con has done nothing that convincingly manages to refute my three contentions: that this is no good for taxpayers, no good for the government, and no good for race relations / the treaty. The resolution is affirmed.
That the recent partial sale of state assets by New Zealand is regrettable

Thanks for Pro's understanding again. Here's some research proviede by College of Business Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor Lawrence C Rose. He has researched the performance of privatised companies in Australia and New Zealand and believes partial sales are a critical part of improving our rate of economic growth. He speaks to Kathryn Farrow. You have come out in favour of the partial sale of state assets. What is your support for the Government’s proposal based on? It actually goes back to my reading of Socialism by Von Mises about the study of the state, originally published in 1922. He basically said that the growth of government is not the solution to the hard economic problems facing us. In fact, it is the opposite: it is the move to individual ownership of assets and taking responsibility for one’s actions that will move society forward. There has been extensive research and ongoing debate on this subject over the years. One thing that is pretty clear is that private ownership of assets by individuals has allowed great strides in individual welfare while solving the hard problems of the world in the past couple of centuries. But if these assets aren’t failing, why sell them? Although they are not necessarily failing, they aren’t performing at the level they should be. Plus, how do you define failure? It is legitimate for governments to have social and redistributive goals and objectives, and if they are achieving these then that is certainly not failure. But people have to understand that their standard of living might not be as high because of those redistributive effects. As the baby boomers leave the workforce, there will be more pressure on the remaining workers to provide both for themselves and for the retiring workforce. So the workers will need to be more productive.From what has been surveyed, I strongly believe the recent partial sale of state assets by New Zealand does more good than harm.
That the recent partial sale of state assets by New Zealand is regrettable

Of course, everything I've said for "context" in the last round was just generalisation. Most of what my opponent adds regarding the reasons for a large net emigration from New Zealand to Australia is probably true to some extent as well. Screwing over taxpayersIt's true that our tax laws are pretty simple most of the time. That simply means it is easier to pay tax, which means it's easier for the government to pay off debt. This makes taking on a small amount of additional debt pretty unjustifiable, particularly given that we are not in a debt crisis. This tax has been used to create assets on our behalf. This is now being sold back to us despite the fact we already own them. Imagine if some person came up to your house and tried to sell it to you. Of course you'd say "no - this house already belongs to me - why would I give you my money for it? "Regardless of our taxes, the cost of power is seperately paid. If that rises substantually, our poor are the ones who will suffer. As much as John Key can fantasize about Kiwi mums and dads - the majority of whom are probably too poor to afford the shares - owning 90% our power companies on the initial sale, the reality is that the shares will go to the highest bidders eventually. Such the Australians have lots of money compared to us, they'll grab those shares. Australia has a pretty long history of stealing New Zealand's stuff - Pavlova, Phar Lap, Russell Crowe, Pineapple Lumps, spreadable butter (actually the whole world stole that one), Weetbix etc. Oh yeah - and almost every government asset we've ever sold too. Screwing over themselvesWe don't need to risk Spain or Greece because our financial position is fantastic - but regardless it's stupid to sell our highest performing assets in such a situation. If New Zealand has a debt problem it is with private debt to overseas lenders (90% of our debt is this) and that's because most of our banks were stolen by the Australians. Our government debt is the third lowest in the western world. In fact our net government debt (counting things that are owed to us) is negative. (. http://www.psa.org.nz...)So the claim that we're one of the most indebted in the world is ridiculous and untrue. And when Labour comes into power, we're going to have to pay for these assets again, and probably have to borrow more money to make that happen. Treaty of WaitangiMy opponent had no rebuttal to this point. I'll take it as conceded. The resolution is affirmed.
That the recent partial sale of state assets by New Zealand is regrettable

The topic refers to the recent program of selling state assets by the New Zealand government. Outside of New Zealand this is not a well-discussed topic, but important background information for those not familiar with it can be found here: . http://www.3news.co.nz...In this debate I will argue that this government program is regrettable, meaning that it will likely produce more negative than positive outcomes. I hold the burden of proof in this debate. The first round is to accept the debate and clarify anything that needs clarifying. Every round we will have 72 hours to put up 8,000 or less characters of argument. This is one of those debates that doesn't fit into one category neatly. I've put it under politics and hope people find it. (:Good luck!
Women in sport are underrepresented in the media

I will only be referencing sports for my arguments. When it comes to media coverage, they (reporters, etc) have an obligation to put things on tv that viewers want to tune into. With that said as a sports fan I agree women should have professional sports and should have the opportunity to be on tv for their accomplishments. However this is where we will disagree, I do feel women get appropriate coverage for their achievements that are worthy of national praise. People get Media coverage for things that are news worthy. Women that are worthy of that coverage get on. When the Williams sisters are tearing up the tennis court they are all over ESPN and other various media outlets, when UConn is going on another stellar win streak they too are all over the sports news world. Rhonda Rousey while undefeated got tremendous coverage. Media coverage does not have to be equally split amongst the sexes. It does however have to bring relevant and exciting information to its viewers. Now to be honest I don't find the WNBA exciting, tennis is ok, soccer is good, softball no one cares about outside of college. so are these sports supposed to get the same air time as a NFL Playoff game, or an NBA game or even a NHL or MLB game. (I hate Baseball BTW and wish it was never on) Lastly for this round I will end it with this. Can you give examples of something you thought was worthy of coverage that didn't receive that coverage?