BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools Should Be Required to Teach Basic Investing Skills and Finance

Thank you for your argument. In your argument, you stated that you believed that families are the better for teaching finance because of how families can families can teach finance in a way that the child can understand and that some family members can be very knowledgeable when it comes to finance and investing. However, both of these arguments are inaccurate or are not complete. If family members were a better source for teaching, then why even have school at all? Why not just have family members teach instead of a school? Family members should not be relied on to teach finance because of these reasons: 1) Not every student has the same type of family. Some students might not have family members that are not home or able to teach them most of the time, and others might have family members that are irresponsible and are not very good at teaching them finance. This is why families should be a supplement to students'. Students learning about finance should learn it in school so that every student can get a good amount of knowledge about finance, no matter what their families are like. 2) It is more likely than not that a student would not have family members easily available that do not have a good amount of knowledge on finance and investing. http://www.cnbc.com... noted that " In a Retirement Income Literacy Survey conducted for The American College of Financial Services last year, 80 percent of the respondents received scores of 60 or lower on financial questions about retirement. Just 20 percent received what amounted to a passing grade." http://www.usatoday.com... has also shown that many Americans do not have a good amount of knowledge on financial topics. While some countries may have a population with more financial literacy, many other countries don't, so schools should teach finance and investing so that all students, no matter how much their families know about finance, can get a vital amount of financial knowledge. Teaching financial literacy in schools would be even more vital for undeveloped countries, as the students there would probably have poor families with even less knowledge about financial topics like investing. Families in underdeveloped countries usually do not have a high amount of education, so schools should be relied on more to teach financial literacy, as they might be a student's only source for learning about finance and investing. While school might add a lot of pressure to students, schools are still here to teach and help educate children, so school would be a good source for teaching financial literacy. Once again, if schools weren't that great at teaching, then why have them at all? Why? Because schools can still be a good source of learning, and if every student learns about finance and investing, then a student's group of friends will be less likely to be financially irresponsible, which would lessen the amount of negative peer pressure around the child. Overall, schools should teach finance and investing skills.
Sagarous (who is I) is a man.

1) Of course I do not know whether you are truly 13, but the age one chooses to put on their profile says something about them. If you were a teenager older than the age of 13, you would not have put 13 unless you were trying to pick up 13 year old girls in which case you are a loser and not a man based on our maturity choice of definition. If you are an adult, choosing 13 as your age then I automatically win this debate because no one would vote for a child molester. 2) Of course, again, I've never met you so I do not know for a fact that you are not mature. But let me just throw this question out... Would a mature 13 year old "Man" post a topic like this? I think not. 3) If I've never met you, how do I know you are even a male??? 4) If I met you and was telling my friends about you I would never refer to you as a man, as I'm sure is the same with anyone else on this site. I'd say I met this boy or guy, not man. I understand you may be having some trouble with your masculinity so you felt compelled to create this debate. Heres some advice: Join the football team :D But be aware that this will still not make you a man for my good friend (very much a girl) plays football. How 'bout we wait until you've finished your awkward stage, then have a rematch ;) Rox
Sagarous (who is I) is a man.

I agree with the statement that you are a male but the topic is that Sagarous is a man. Man is a term used for mature males and according to your profile you are 13 and in my experience 13 year old males shouldnt be considered men yet.The term man (irregular plural: men) is used for an adult human male, with the term boy being the usual term for a human male child or adolescent human male.
Sagarous (who is I) is a man.

I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man. I'm sorry for the repetition but my opening argument must be at least 100 words. I am male. Take my word for it. Trust me. I am a man.
In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates

"This is an interesting statement. I must ask the question, if it's enormously inappropriate then why are they ever allowed to vote upon being released from prison?" Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Once there time is up, so is their punishment. When the punishment is over, their rights shall be returned. "The whole idea of democracy is for everyone's voice to be heard, even if we might not trust their judgement" "Like I stated earlier. Prisoners commit the crime to society as a whole, so they don't really care for a society. Also, democracy is irrelevant, since America is not a true democracy. In a republic, we elect officials to vote for us. (Electoral college). "First of all, most prisoners are going to be released at some point (very few life in prisons in comparison). Would you suggest they gain no knowledge of politics while in prison? " I do not want to withhold info. They have access to news. But there is no real point to them voting because when you go to prison, you are typically there for a while. You don't go to prison for 3 months. If you are sent to prison, we are talking in term,s of years. "However, the election of a president can still directly affect their lives." Not in prison. I can imagine many prisoners don't care. They are not directly affected because they are always put in the lowest tax bracket. You agreed with my argument with children and handicapped people. I see no difference in children in prisoners. They both eventually gain the right to vote, and you essentially agreed to both sides in that statement. "What? Do you suggest all rights being stripped? Flawed logic." I never said anything close to this. Prisoners are not guaranteed all of their rights. Similarly to how students lose some rights. My argument of this stands because you dropped this argument. "When prisoners can vote while behind bars, that's one more reason for them to feel like they're still part of the outside world and one less reason for them to feel alienated and break the law again." Also, you failed to prove this from the last round, so this is officially invalid. You also dropped my argument where I talked about how gangs could influence the prisoner vote. You dropped my argument talking about how it is not unconstitutional for prisoners to lose a few rights, because students justifiably lose a few rights in school. You also dropped my argument talking how prisoners likely will return to prison. You dropped my rebuttal talking about how prisoners are not a part of society, mainly because prison is meant to seclude them. Thanks
In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates

I thank Con for presenting well thought out arguments! As a brief roadmap, I will be addressing all the points presented by my opponent. "It would be enormously inappropriate to elect officials through people who have broken the system." This is an interesting statement. I must ask the question, if it's enormously inappropriate then why are they ever allowed to vote upon being released from prison? Under that logic, you believe any individual that has been to prison should never vote. Regardless, even if an individual has broken the "system" I am going to argue representation is more important than suppressing their right to vote. The whole idea of democracy is for everyone's voice to be heard, even if we might not trust their judgement. We see many unintelligent voters all the time, however, this does not mean we ought to suppress their vote. This would be reverting back to the times where only certain sections of society could vote...ie. Rich white men who owned land. "We now have to take care of the prisoner. The prisoner is now essentially a burden on society. If prisoners are apparently more capable of making poor decisions, then why should they help decide the fate of America?" First of all, most prisoners are going to be released at some point (very few life in prisons in comparison). Would you suggest they gain no knowledge of politics while in prison? Second, you talk about how they are a burden on society, and to an extent I agree. However, the election of a president can still directly affect their lives. You see, the problem with suppressing a minority (even if that minority happens to be in a prison), is that it can lead them subject to potential harms. Such as an increase in harshness of sentences changes in the death penalty, etc. Not to mention, once they are released that president could also affect their lives for 4 more years. "We don't allow prisoners to vote because we do not trust their judgement." You talk about the examples of children and the "mentally incapable." In the case of children I would agree with you, they chose the age 18 to wait for the kid to be mature, but this is because children are already receiving representation by their guardians -- thus protecting them. Prisoners don't have this luxury. I'm assuming you mean mentally handicapped, in which case, these people literally cannot vote. It's not that we don't trust their judgement; it's that they literally cannot exercise their right to vote. Unintelligent people are allowed to vote so we can receive better representation, same thing with prisoners. "If prisoners want the right to vote so bad, they should not break the law. Prisoners are not a part of the community. That's why they are secluded in jailhouses." What? Do you suggest all rights being stripped? Flawed logic. I was talking about once they are released. I would argue, releasing the prisoners into a society where they can't feel accepted results in the cycle of going back to prison again
In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates

In a society based on republicanism, we elect officials to vote for us. This is know as the electoral college. These candidates are essentially elected to vote vote for us. It would be enormously inappropriate to elect officials through people who have broken the system. When someone commits a crime, yes the action is committed to the victim, but the crime is also reflected upon in the society. We now have to take care of the prisoner. The prisoner is now essentially a burden on society. If prisoners are apparently more capable of making poor decisions, then why should they help decide the fate of America? Next, why do we not allow children to vote? We don't allow children to vote because we do not trust their judgement. Why are the mentally incompetent not allowed to vote? We don't allow the mentally incompetent to vote because we do not trust their judgement. Why do we not allow prisoners to vote? We don't allow prisoners to vote because we do not trust their judgement. Also, why would prisoners care who's in office? If i'm in prison serving 35 years for murder, the president of the united states is irrelevant. As long as there are 3 square meals a day, a prisoner has no real reason to have a legitimate vote. Also, as we are all aware, prisons are notorious for gangs. Who's to say a gang who is already inside the prison would not give a reward to prisoners for voting for their selected candidate? You talk about how it's essentially unconstitutional that prisoners lose rights. If it's so bad the CONVICTED felons lose freedoms, then why hasn't America stopped and paid attention to the students who are not guaranteed 100% of their rights. Under your argument, why should murderers, thieves, and rapists have more rights than students? 52% of released prisoners return. Prison as of right now is not about fixing people. It's about punishment. If prisoners want the right to vote so bad, they should not break the law. We cannot forget that prison is not supposed to equate to the outside world of freedom. "we have to make them feel like they're an essential part of the community before letting them free. " Prisoners are not a part of the community. That's why they are secluded in jailhouses. "that's one more reason for them to feel like they're still part of the outside world and one less reason for them to feel alienated and break the law again." If you can give me statistics, this argument stands. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Thanks http://www.crimeinamerica.net... http://en.wikipedia.org...
In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates

Observations: Ought is defined as moral obligation. In this circumstance, morality should be determined on a utilitarian outlook that benefits the democracy itself. Through my three contentions I will prove that not allowing prisoners to vote threatens this utilitarian outlook. C1- Not allowing prisoners to vote threatens governmental legitimate in a democracy: First, we need to define governmental legitimacy. According to John Locke, in the hypothetical "state of nature" that precedes the creation of human societies, men live "equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection," Locke proceeded to write that a legitimate government is "consented to make one Community or Government " wherein the Majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.". In order to truly determine the wishes of the majority of people, we must also include prisoners. The appeal of democracy is that it seeks to represent all minorities and individuals in the government. This allows for no discrimination against ethnicity, socioeconomics, and, in this case, prisoners. Prisoners are still citizens of the U.S government and therefore, they still require representation in voting in order to keep the system legitimate. This virtuous cycle is essential to democracy. In fact, it's the whole point of a democratic republic in the first place. We want people to vote because in a democratic republic every viewpoint contributes something important to the marketplace of ideas. So when convicted felons and prisoners get to vote, they add yet another voice to our democracy. And that's good for everyone. C2- Voting is a right that's granted to all American citizens: The argument that allowing prisoners to vote would be costly and impractical is ethically unjustifiable. Similarly, the fact that prisoners lose many freedoms does not imply they should lose all their civil rights. Denying prisoners the right to vote is likely to undermine respect for the rule of law. Allowing prisoners to vote, by contrast, may strengthen their social ties and commitment to the common good, thus promoting legally responsible participation in civil society. and promoting my utilitarian outlook on the resolution. C3- Offers a form of "rehabilitation," if you will: When people vote, they feel like they're part of something bigger than themselves. They feel like they're part of the nation. They know that they have a say in the way things are run in this country. At some point, most felons will leave prison and re-enter everyday society. As we prepare them for everyday life outside of a prison cell or a jail-yard, we have to make them feel like they're an essential part of the community before letting them free. When prisoners can vote while behind bars, that's one more reason for them to feel like they're still part of the outside world and one less reason for them to feel alienated and break the law again. Sources: - John Locke: http://www.britannica.com...
In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates

"what rights may or may not be taken from prisoners? Where do we draw the line? " You overcomplicated this. We are necessarily taking away rights, just limiting them. Like in schools, student still have the freedom of speech, but there is some sort of suppression. It's really quite simple. "The reason we have the electoral college is to accurately represent the people. Democracy is not irrelevant because the United States is a democratic republic, which means the citizens still elect officials to make decisions." That is not the reason. The electoral college was established in the 12th amendment. It was established because we could not possibly count everybody in America's vote in one day. Pick up a history book before you make assumptions. "Since when? People can go to prison for 6 months etc." No honey, you go to jail for 6 month terms. Prison is where you go for real crime. "I already refuted this point. Children have representation because of their guardians. Representation helps protect them from having rights violated. Because the guardians generally have best interest in mind, they will vote for the candidate that ensures safety for their children. " This rebuttal was a mess. Children have no representation in court. My parents don't speak on my behalf. I have different thoughts, different ideologies. Also, representatives give no protection. That is the constitution and the judicial branches job. "It's not a statement that requires proving. It's not stating there is a decrease in crime; all that claim was stating was that they have one less reason for them to feel alienated." I say that statement is not true. You have no evidence supporting. Therefore, it is invalid. My opponent failed to accurately argue all of my points. Several of my points were dropped. I'm assuming that since they were dropped, he must agree with them. "My opponent never addresses that representation is important for protection of the individuals and for protecting minority rights. " Thats because it's not. I have no representation, and I'm great. The supreme court has ruled several times on the rights of prisoners and student alike. "Just because prisoners lose some rights, does not mean they lose all rights. She consistently says they lost their rights because they committed a crime. " I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there rights are just not as apparent. Similar to how students don't have 100% of all their rights. " Mentally handicapped literally cannot exercise right to vote and children have representation because of their guardian." You took this argument out of context. I was painting a picture. All 3 bodies are not allowed to vote for the same reason. While they are different, they are united. Also, my friend with autism could easily click a button. It's the influence I put on him that would lead to his decision. Thanks http://www.dummies.com...
In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates

"Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Once there time is up, so is their punishment. When the punishment is over, their rights shall be returned." You refer frequently to how they lose rights in prison, which is true, but then I must ask the question, what rights may or may not be taken from prisoners? Where do we draw the line? This is where we draw it, the rights we do restrict from prisoners is to directly help the well-being and safety of other individuals by keeping them contained. Allowing them to vote is NOT directly hurting another individual, but instead, allows them to enter the realm of politics and be represented "America is not a true democracy" The reason we have the electoral college is to accurately represent the people. Democracy is not irrelevant because the United States is a democratic republic, which means the citizens still elect officials to make decisions. "You don't go to prison for 3 months." Since when? People can go to prison for 6 months etc. "You agreed with my argument with children and handicapped people. I see no difference in children in prisoners." I already refuted this point. Children have representation because of their guardians. Representation helps protect them from having rights violated. Because the guardians generally have best interest in mind, they will vote for the candidate that ensures safety for their children. Prisoners do not have this luxury. They have no representation to protect them from potential harm. "Also, you failed to prove this from the last round, so this is officially invalid." It's not a statement that requires proving. It's not stating there is a decrease in crime; all that claim was stating was that they have one less reason for them to feel alienated. My opponent than proceeds to the "drops" which are absolutely false. Judges, look back and refer to my arguments, I have addressed all but one of these points my opponent claims as "drops." And that is the gang argument which my opponent never proved as a significant threat. Voter Issues: 1. My opponent never addresses that representation is important for protection of the individuals and for protecting minority rights. Prisoners are, in fact, a minority, therefore allowing them to vote can protect them from potential harm. This is key in this debate as I explain why representation is important in a democracy, or in this case, a democratic republic 2. Just because prisoners lose some rights, does not mean they lose all rights. She consistently says they lost their rights because they committed a crime. However, the only rights they actually have lost are the ones preventing them from DIRECTLY hurting other individuals. That is why they are in prison. 3. She consistently compares children and the mentally handicapped to prisoners. As I've previously stated, this simply does not apply. Mentally handicapped literally cannot exercise right to vote and children have representation because of their guardian. I affirm.
Zaradi Toruney: Best Military Leaders Debate

This is a part of Zaradi's mega tournament, me and 9space will be debating the best generals/military leaders of history. In each side, both debaters will post ONE person they believe is one of the best military minds in history, and give a brief or detailed description about them.... They can also offer some words of rebuttal against whoever the other side chooses, but I would like to stress that doing so is entirely optional. First round acceptance only. 4 rounds and 8000 characters. Vote for whoever you think made better selections.