BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Be it resolved that education is the only way out of the U.S current economic condition

>>>>>>>>>>>>Rebuttal<<<<<<<<<<<< My opponent that is the point of debating, due to the fact the moot use it vaguely I can define it in whatever way I choose. I shouldn’t be doing this however in debating it’s about tearing the moot a apart to suit your favor. You stated “As you said, "only CAN BE defined as...” there can be more than one way to define it in your argument.” That’s the thing, I choose to define it in that way to suit my favor and that my opponent is called semantics also in debating, you can chose to accept my definition or reject it. That is a skilled that I use to take over the debate so you cannot counter me because everything you may come with involves some form of reasoning or general knowledge. You should have started by defining the terms and you did not so you can’t blame me. I am not abusive I am using the art of semantics in this debate it seems you are new to debating I am new as well however I have develop some form of skill that can help. You can state your argument but let the better argument win
Be it resolved that education is the only way out of the U.S current economic condition

Rebuttal: First of all, you did not state YOUR definition of the word, "only". The title uses "only" vaguely; I assumed you meant it as "alone in kind or class, sole". As you said, "only CAN BE defined as..."; there can be more than one way to define it in your argument. With your definition of "education", you are giving an argument that cannot be argued. Every day, every second of our lives, we are honing our powers or reasoning. I can't deny it: it's true- I can't say that we can't recognize ordinary items in our lives. With this, you are insinuating that this debate is as obvious as the fact that the sun is in the sky; I feel that this is rather abusive, as I really have very little to counter with if you state things like that.
Be it resolved that education is the only way out of the U.S current economic condition

Education may be one way to get out of our current economic situation, but it is not the ONLY way. There are many other professions out there, such as the auto industry, that can serve as revivals to the economic situation. There are also acts that can be passed by the president, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has created new jobs. Other than jobs, trading overseas is also another path to take. We can improve our labor standards and crank out more exports quickly and efficiently. And last, another way to improve the economic situation is to fix problems in our economy, or rather make strategies to strengthen it. Examples include changes to our tax code, creating regional economic development partnerships, and creating a competitive grant program. To end, I ask that you clarify your "education" part. Is it like school education, like middle schools or high schools? Or do you mean certain school for certain professions, like a university for architects? Sources: http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.sfgate.com...
U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law.

Lets first say this, Guns do not kill people, People kill people. So the reason you are posting this is that your saying that guns are used in crime and to kill. So next thing they should do is ban knives, forks, pencils, pens, because all of those can be heals against someone to either kill or injure someone severely. "I ask you this, where did the guns came from?" The guns come from out of country sources, I don't know how much you know about this type of things but any gun can be traced back to its original buyer and they catch him, then get him to tell them where there guy is. Just like drugs they don't buy them from stores they get them for out of country sources. Lets just restate, guns don't kill people, the person having the gun kills the person. Guns aren't dangerous at all if used properly. Also, guns are used as self defence across the nation. I'm ending my discussion by saying guns have been around for decades and decades, people are going to kill other people, whether it be shooting, beating, stabbing, drawing, ext. Removing guns WILL NOT stop crime, they will just resort to knives and such. Also, its our constitutional right. I believe I have won but it is up to the voters.
U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law.

What you do with guns doesn't matter to me. Its dangerous and lethal and America is just selling it. "Guns are used as protection" You need a gun for protection if someone breaks in. But isn't it better if the guns aren't sold so both don't have a firearm? "They do now require a background check and some states are requiring a licence to buy one. So right now they shouldn't stop selling firearms becuase only a minority actualy buy them from stores." Lets say, you wan't to rob a store, but you don't have a gun. But, its america so you can just buy one at the shop. Or you can just lie to someone so you can rent a gun. But if the person has been caught once already, he could just ask a friend for a gun. (this most likely happens if the friend agrees or join with the theft) "They usuly go to an amrs dealer so they can remain underground and not be picked up by the cops." I ask you this, where did the guns came from? "There is no way to stop this, there will always be secret arms dealers everywhere so it dosnt make since to stop the sell of guns to the majoirty of the population." How will you not be able to stop this? The congress for example, could just forbid the use of guns and have them all hand in the guns, solving the problem. The less guns that are in america, the less gun crimes occurs and the harder it gets to get your hands on a gun. Also, an arm dealer will never remain hidden.They always has to flee from the cops and most of the arms dealer are even caught.
U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law.

Yes, there are a lot of crimes in America, but not all of them involve guns. Guns are used as protection and recreational fun. I personaly go shooting on a private range every month and it's a lot of fun. They do now require a background check and some states are requiring a licence to buy one. So right now they shouldn't stop selling firearms becuase only a minority actualy buy them from stores. They usualy go to an amrs dealer so they can remain underground and not be picked up by the cops. There is no way to stop this, there will always be secret arms dealers everywhere so it dosnt make since to stop the sell of guns to the majoirty of the population. Your turn.
Public Funded Birth Control

Seeing that con has failed to counter the obviously beneficial outcomes of publicly funded birth control, I shall restate what I said earlier. Publicly funded birth control would be good for the environment since it slows down population growth, it would be good socially since less people would have to raise unintended children or have an abortion, and it would be beneficial economically since there would be less "welfare children" for the welfare system to pay for not to mention the money the consumer saves from not having to buy birth control.
Public Funded Birth Control

I will start off by saying that publicly funded would be beneficial to society as a whole since it would 1. Save Money. The reason it would save money is because less welfare children would be born since the lower socio-economic groups would have access to birth control. Since there would be less welfare children born, the state would not have to spend on much on welfare as they currently do. 2. Less abortions. Since all people would have access to birth control, the amount of unintended pregnancies would drop. With less unintended pregnancies, there would be a correlating effect to less abortions. 3. Good for the Environment. With slower population growth, society as a whole would become more sustainable and put less strain on the environment. 4. Good for the economy. With all the money saved from having to spend on birth control, people could spend money on other items or services (or better yet save money) which would have a positive effect on the nation. With positive economic, social, and environmental consequences, it seems unreasonable to argue that It would have a negative effect compared to the current status qua of not having birth control publicly funded.
Public Funded Birth Control

Telling people not to have sex is just not going to do the trick, people are going to still have sex, the sexual drive is one of the main drives of humanity. That being said, I shall pull some statistics from Americanprogress.org to make you rethink your opinion. The average working women between the ages of 18-34 only earns roughly 27,000$ a year. Many of these women have put off seeing the doctor to get birth control just because of the cost. Now most of us being middle or upper class think birth control is cheap, but to these people it is expensive considering the limited amount of cash at their disposal. As for the insurance, true insurance does help pay for birth control, but it does not pay for the whole cost. Women with private insurance have to pay 50% of the cost still to get birth control. Women spend 68% more out of pocket healthcare cost then men do, in part because of contraception cost. With all this information, one can come to the conclusion that free contraception would free them of the financial strain and anxiety of having to worry about having access to contraception all the time. 2. You admit that publicly funded birth control would lower the abortion rate. I am glad we agree on that. A lower abortion rate would have huge societal benefits such as having less people go through the traumatizing experience of abortion and less people having to pay for an abortion which would help the economy since with all that extra money, they can spend it on other things they need or want (or save it). 3. True, there wouldn't have been any movement to do things in a certain way had it not been for high population growth. The past is the past though and we need to focus on the present. The world is projected to be able to support 8 billion people. We are at 7 billion right now, so as a world if we want to avoid a crisis or extreme inequality we should work and implement solutions (public funded birth control) now so that we can avoid the crises of tomorrow. 4. Colorado when they implemented this program, it was estimated that it saved the state 69$ million dollars alone for just the year of 2004. How they came up with this number was the cost that it saved both the healthcare system and the welfare system. Every year STD's cost the US healthcare system 17 Billion dollars. Publicly funded birth control in Colorado shows that it would save the US healthcare system money because in Colorado the STD rate dropped since the funding for birth control not only covered the oral contraception pill, but also condoms which prevent STD transmission. With this drop, the Colorado healthcare system as I said earlier said money. The Colorado welfare system also saved money because less welfare children were born. Since Publicly funded birth control would save both on healthcare cost and welfare cost, the savings would more then cover the cost of providing birth control to the public. Plus, not only will the program save the government money, it will also save the individual money so it is a win-win for everyone.
the Bible is not the Greatest Book Ever Written

I agree with you that borrowing from other stories is... a bit annoying. But once again if you consider the time period the book is from, most people couldn't read and most stories were passed down by word of mouth. it actually makes sense that we see a lot of borrowed material in those time periods. There are definitely different ways to assign "The greatest book" title. Most of those assignments are based on opinion, and opinion is obviously subjective. But if we look at the objective facts that we know about all the books in the world. The Bible clearly wins in a number of categories. It has been translated into the most languages It has been reprinted the most times. it has the largest number of followers (as the religion it represents) and last but not least it has inspired the writing of the most secondary literature which exist specifically to discuss "The Bible" in its many forms. http://www.statisticbrain.com... It has been a huge pleasure to debate you about this subject. I wasn't aware that you were Jewish, knowing that I would love to talk to you about Josephus and the world that existed around 70AD.
the Bible is not the Greatest Book Ever Written

It is a good point that Mein Kampf is bought a lot because of its controversy. But there is no possible best book because it is subject to opinion and the book has very inspirational stories and very predictable stories. The story of David is an amazing story but the story of Christ is very unoriginal as Horus predates Jesus. The book is amazing but not near the best. The main criticism I have of it is the borrowing of other stories. This is an issue with many other religious documents such as my own religion's Torah,Tanach,and Talmud.
the Bible is not the Greatest Book Ever Written

The Mein Kampf has sold the 2nd highest number of copies with the Bible selling the all time highest number of copies so there is no doubt that these two works are similar based upon the number of copies that they have sold. However I think that the Mein Kampf sells many of its copies because of the huge scar that Adolf Hitler left on our history and people's desire to "try and understand the mad man". I know that there are Nazi sympathizers who read Mein Kampf as their Nazi Bible but most people who I have personally encountered who have read that book, have read it because of scholastic requirements or morbid curiosity. I don't think these two books are equal in content, but that is admittedly my personal opinion. Your point about the disgusting side of the Bible is very true. However you can not judge a book written thousands of years ago by modern values. The world that existed while the many books of the Bible were written was a very different world than we live in today. Slavery was common place and was not ethnocentric like the slavery of the 1800s in America. Warfare like that urged upon the Amalekites was common place in those times. people were very tribal and lived in small war like communities. The Amalekites followed the Hebrews through the desert during their journey to the promised land and constantly were raiding them for supplies, this caused much death and suffering for the Hebrews. Everything in history must be considered within the context of events leading up to that history. The other spiritual books you've mentioned are very related to the Bible, for example the Talmud contains the exact same stories about Amalek. The Koran was based upon the religious books of the Bible and even recognizes Jesus as a prophet. There is no doubt that Muhammad (PBUH) was well aware of Jesus, the Bible and influenced by those works just like the billions of other people who have been inspired by the Bible over the last 2 millennia.
the Bible is not the Greatest Book Ever Written

You make a good point that this book is known worldwide but so is Mein Kampf. You're greatest point however is its morals. While it has great morals,there are disgusting things within. "This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3) "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18). These verses are one of other disturbing and immoral verses. The printing press is a good argument undeniably. The book is one of MANY guiding books such as the Quran and the Talmud. These books have the same values as well.
the Bible is not the Greatest Book Ever Written

Firstly to address my opponent's claim that the positive reviews are just Christians. Yes they are Christian reviews of a book that is front and center of their faith. That doesn't change the fact that Christians are people and have the same right to review a book as an agnostic like me, or any person of any creed. The bible is the greatest book (collection of books bound as one) because; 1) the purpose of a book is to share knowledge and to entertain. The Bible has done both very well, and for a very long time. Regardless of any person's personal conviction on if the bible is fiction or non fiction, there are many very entertaining stories contained within its pages and there is a realistic glimpse into history that has inspired people for millennia. This inspiration is arguably responsible for the earliest explorations of our physical world. Many people educated in Christian schools were the brightest minds of their time. Many inventions owed their discovery to these religious scholars. And beyond that many great works of art would have never been funded if not for the church, and the church wouldn't exist if not for the bible. The printing press was invented specifically to make copying the bible easier. This book has accomplished far more than telling a story or converting believers, it has comforted people on their death bed and compelled them to tell the truth in a court of law. This book has served as a safe place to document complex family trees and has even been used as a learning tool by teachers all over the world when books were much less accessible. It has simultaneously connected us to the past whilst guiding us in the future. Even if it is a complete fiction, it has taught us the value of feeding the poor, healing the sick and loving our enemies. It has urged us not to ignore the stranded traveller. It has given us the bravery to question authority. If books were living organisms who must reproduce or go extinct, the bible would be the most successful organism of all.
Violence is not necassry to change the government

Not that I don't believe in historical figures changing the government. Of course, I do believe on them, considering that they were already factoids that had long been came to existence. What I was trying to say is, if there is a violence, the government could not do anything but to react as it is basically their role to do so. By reacting, it just shows that they have acted. Similarly, if they act, there is a tendency that part of them if not all will alter, though the change is quite ambiguous. You also have a point there that in the early times, they made use of marches and any other non-violent act to create change. But don't forget that the government themselves are sometimes (or most of the time) pretentious and tend to be 'blind and deaf' (basing on my observations). So that means to say, even when people rally, the government won't simply care. But their attention could simply be catch by the people through violence. They couldn't just simply resist to act if people will appeal to them or else, their 'business' would be revealed.
teens should play call of duty games!

Rebuttals:First of all, I want to point out that soldiering is no longer considered a great job. The world has begun to move away from the idea that war is good (since about WW1), and towards the idea of peace. Generally, training children to create an army to fight other nations is not considered important. My second point here is that Call of Duty (CoD) games are not considered a replacement for actual military skills. You cannot press a button on a PlayStation and learn instantly how to fire a gun. They are not the same; one is a war situation, and the other one is in your living room. Arguments:Pro stated that CoD is violent. Of course it is. America has a 4.7 out of 100,000 people rate of murders [1]. France is 1.2, Belgium is 1.8, England & Wales combined are 1.0. America has a huge amount of murders. Video games like CoD are popular in America. It seems pretty obvious what one of the factors is. Another, much more clear example, shows the correlation between behavioral problems much more clearly[2]. A chart (shown near the bottom of the source given), shows that 51 percent of boys who play M rated games have been in a physical fight in the past 12 months, whereas only about 28 percent of non M gamers. For girls, 40 percent of M gamers have been in a fight, with only 14 percent of non-M gamers. This violence in games causes violence, and that is a problem for America. I have a question for the instigator: Are you arguing that all teen gamers should play CoD, or that teens should be allowed to? This is slightly confusing. I await your arguments. Sources:[1]. https://www.unodc.org... [2]. http://videogames.procon.org...
If we can't enact lobbying reform let's at least let consumer groups hold public office

"Even more amusing is your objection that it would involve more people in government and make it more complicated. That is the whole point." I debated whether or not to type more than just that quote. Government is far too complicated as it is. Anything that will make it more so cannot be good for our country. This proposal would result in massive changes to our government, including several constitutional amendments. It would amount to a completely new system of government, with no similarities to what we have today. Such a massive upheaval at a time when we are fighting a war on another continent and dealing with economic problems would likely destroy our country. I believe that the point of those "boring civics classes" was to teach people about how government works, so that they would be able to understand HOW to participate. Replacing them with actual participation would be like replacing med school with actual surgery. "Well if it can't then get new laws or do away with laws and lawyers I don't care." And therein lies the problem. Doing away with laws would destroy the point of electing people at all. The attack on lawyers is not only unnecessary and irrelevant, but also false, since not even half of Congresspeople are lawyers (218 out of 535) "Corporations act as people, and have all the rights people have" This does not mean just any group of people. I can't pick a random group of friends and say that the group can act as a person. I read your "Money is Worthless" debate. It was a waste of my time. You made no actual argument and resorted to petty insults and childish antics to make your point. There was no reason for me to look at it, since it doesn't act as a source. I reject all of the assertions that you made in your final paragraph as baseless. Throughout this debate, you have given no specifics, and never given any actual reason that this idea would work. The general concept is interesting, but in practice, having consumer groups be elected to public office would result in a government that would be even more corrupt and less efficient than the one we have now.