BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education develops a person.

ONE Well I would have to disagree with you and say the purpose of education is the development of a person. Well I notice you start off with Freires banking concept of education and quote him onward. But, just because there is no critical analysis the person is still absorbing information creating an education for themselves, right? Going back to what you said "Christopher Columbus discovered America when he sailed the ocean blue in 1492." I do agree with you that this is a very vague topic and there is more to be discovered about the real origin of America. But, having known just this little much of Columbus discovering America in 1492 is enough to educate and create a development of a person. No matter how much knowledge you have you are still developing the person to be something bigger and better, going back to Columbus just because that is a catchy easy to remember phrase kids do learn it quicker doesn"t mean they are not educated, yes of course there is always more to something, but having the basic idea down is always a positive. Memorization is a form of education as well. I know in fact that for English class there were always words we had to remember for a vocabulary test. Now remembering them is as far as we can go there is no analyzing them because they all have simple meanings. Just because I memorized them does this make me not educated because I did not further look into the vocabulary word? In Freire`s Pedagogy of the Oppressed he quotes "Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students." Which in another words in order to begin the education process the student and teacher must create a bond that develops the person.
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

You are voting Con in this debate for 3 reasons 1. They concede that you should reject them for supporting the Empire 2. They concede that all of their impacts are inevitable in the world of the Empire this means that they don"t get any advantage of doing their plan 3. They literally double turn themselves"""" They say that I am spreading propaganda and that I should lose because of that but remember their entire plan. One of their advantages to doing it is state controlled education that is actual propaganda. I will answer their 11 new points that they brought up First they say that I exceed limits however they don"t read an impact or a voter to me exceeding limits means that even if I did the Pro didn"t provide a reason to reject me on it, Hold them to what they said don"t make arguments You can group points 2-7 They say that I don"t address the debate and that im only fixated on the Empire. This is what the Pro messes up and simply does not understand in this debate. They are a unique manifestation of the Empire and that we should not be indoctrination people from birth into the Empire that was literally the story from the first round. I don"t need to debate them on their claims from round one when they drop the piece of evidence that says im controlling the root cause of the Impact debate. This means that any negative thing that you could stop by voting Pro is actually a reason why you are voting Con because those impacts are inevitable in the world of Empire. Even if you think the evidence wasn"t good enough on the root cause question you"re going to weigh it anyway when the Pro does literally zero work on this question, Don"t make arguments for them. The Pro failed to understand that nothing they said matters when I control the impact question. Look the Empire was not my own agenda it was a disadvantage to doing what the Pro proposes that subsumes their impacts 8 That"s exactly what the Empire would say. They want you to think the Empire is fake because if you think it is fake then there will be no reason to weigh how the Pro effects the Spread of the Empire when you believe it fake. See through the Empires lies. 9 This is not propaganda this is exactly what Hardt and Negri Critique the Pro is calling for a state controlled indoctrination program that is literally propaganda 10 No the Empire controls the Media, I want to break the people way from indoctrination from the state 11 Lol how can I be the Empire if you say it is fake"". . Which is it am I the Empire or is it fake. . I am not the Empire the Empire was hidden until I brought it to light Look in the end if you are not buying the Empire stuff your voting Con on the double turn. They themselves say that propaganda is bad" those are their words not mine and their plan causes indoctrination and propaganda
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

1) Con exceeds limits. 2) Con fixates on H & N. 3) Con also fixates on Empire 4) Con does not attempt to address the basis of the debate. 5) Con does not attempt to address any of the practicalities of next generation farming. 6) Con subverts. 7) Con seeks to introduce their own agenda. 8) Con's agenda would seem to be fantasy based. 9) Con's fantasy is typical Tinseltown us and them propaganda. 10) Con is the product of modern media indoctrination. 11) Con is "Empire" but doesn't realise it.
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

To address the claim that an NGO would just become part of the Empire. Hardt and Negri would never conclude than an NGO used in direct opposition to Empire would be bad. However for the sake of this debate so it does not get confusing, I will not be extending the Counter Plan. There is no offense on the Counter Plan. New analysis in the Pro"s next round justify new answers made by me next round Lets go to the Empire debate. This is where I am winning this debate. They concede that Technologies of control and social production are the means by which Empire legitimizes itself That was Hardt and Negri from their book Empire. This means that when The Pro says that we should utilize tech to indoctrinate and the fact that it will be a state controlled program prove that they are a unique manifestation of the Empire. Next they try to spin that the state is more representative of the whole so it would be a good idea to trust the state however that is exactly what the Empire would say. The Pro"s claims are lies and false fronts. They also try and say that Empire is just a concept to which we apply mental imagery and come up with an assumption but again that is exactly what the Empire would say the Pro knows that I am on to them and they are going to outed as the Empire and they are doing everything they can to cover their tracks. The Empire is shadowy figure that controls all through a mixed constitution. The Pro then conceded that the Empire is the root cause of all evil in the world which means that if you want to be able to solve for their own claims you should reject them as the spread of the Empire moves us farther from those goals. Lastly they concede that you should be rejecting them for being part of the Empire
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

Empire is a concept to which we apply mental imagery and come up with an assumption. An NGO. Is just the same. Which do we assume is the more sinister? Concepts vary as a result of individual programming. (Currently problematic) The reality is; social organisation must be collective and State is more representative of the whole NGO's represent minorities and profit. ( Let's negate monetarism). All areas of production and education would require precise and strict State control anyway.
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

1. Hardt and Negri write in their book Empire in 2000 that Technologies of control and social production are the means by which Empire legitimizes itself The source of imperial normativity is born of a globalized biopolitical machine. In the genesis of Empire there is a rationality at work that can be recognized. This is a rationality that situates us at the heart of biopolitics and biopolitical technologies. 2. Hardt and Negri write in their book assembly in 2017 that the Empire uses the fog of war to make impacts like oppression and violence inevitable An ideological fog that clouds myriad forms of violence, Making them all but invisible to external observers, And even sometimes to those who suffer them. Some extreme forms of violence, Spectacular acts of brutality. 3. You should resist all forms of the Empire 1. A NGO should produce and rear humans in a controlled environment 2. Solves all of the Pro's claims while avoiding the Empire
It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

We have arrived at a human evolutionary point where next generation humans could and should be produced and reared in a controlled environment. Obvious advantages to such a system are: 1) Removal of all the burdens of child production from women. 2) From day one. Conditioning and educational responsibility shifts to a state controlled curriculum. 3)Stricter control over character development of next generation humans. 4)Stricter control over population growth. 5)Screening and selection benefits
Wrestling should be Removed from the Olympics

RebuttalsMy opponent's arguments seem to fall into three maint contentions1. Historical pertinence2. International Diversity-Wrestling vs. Pentathlon3. Modern Pentathlon should be dropped1. Historical pertinenceIn the ancient Greek olympics, wrestling matches ended in brutal death, and they would fight naked in olive oil. Tradition is never an important point in any debate. Sometimes we must look past tradition and move on for what is best for everybody. Also, if you disclude the brutal early Greek Olympics, modern pentathlon has been around just as long as wrestling.2. International Diverstity-Wrestling vs. PentathlonWhile this is true, wrestling only has a few more countries then modern pentathlon. Also, modern pentathlon contains many more sports that wrestling, which is just Greco Roman and freestyling. Modern pentathlon is more fun to watch because it is exciting, fast paced, and diverse in its fields.3. Modern PentathlonI believe I have covered this in my last two rebuttals. Modern pentathlon is much more exctiing and fun to watch, and also, it isnot the case of why modern pentathlon is better than wrestling, but the main flaws of wrestling, which were apparent in myarguments.
Wrestling should be Removed from the Olympics

I'm fine with Pro having full burden of proof.The sport of wrestling has a long and storied history at the Olympics. Wrestling is the among the oldest competitive sports in the world (cave drawings from as early as 3,000 B.C. depict wrestler) and was introduced at the ancient Olympic Games in the year 708 B.C.. When the Olympics were revived in 1896, wrestling became a focus of the event due to its historical significance. While wrestling was omitted from the 1900 games, it has been present ever since.[1] It is one of the 26 'core' Olympic sports.[2] 180 countries vied to play at the 2012 Games, with only 71 making the cut. 29 countries won medals, and around 23 million viewers watched them compete at the 2012 Olympics.[3] Wrestling attracts a diverse group of competitors - Russia is the dominant country (although the US has more medals), but countries like Cuba, Finland, and South Korea have won medals as well.[3]With such a rich history, why would the Olympics want to remove it? Wrestling does have some issues - FILA, the wrestling federation, has done next to nothing to protect it because they believed they would not see such a classic sport removed. However, deeper issues exist in the I.O.C. The same meeting that resulted in the decision to remove wrestling from the 2020 Olympics was the one that voted to keep 'modern pentathlon'.[3] What is modern pentathlon? Well, it was sport created specifically for the Olympics and introduced in 1912.[4] A contrived sport consisting of the seemingly random activities of pistol shooting, horseback riding, cross-country running, fencing, and swimming, it attracts only 12.5 million viewers and only 26 countries (less than the number of medal-winning countries (29) in wrestling) bothered to compete in the event in 2012. A total of 53 countries play the sport.[3] New York Times writer John Irving writes that one of the board members, Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr., is the vice president of the International Modern Pentathlon Union, and only two of the board's fifteen members come from countries that "actively promote" wrestling.[3] Clearly modern pentathlon is not nearly as popular as wrestling, so why keep it over it? Simply put, the conflict of interest of the board is impossible to deny. By removing wrestling as a sport, they are robbing the millions of wrestlers worldwide the opportunity to represent their country on the highest international stage, and keeping an unneeded sport that nobody plays instead.References:1: http://www.olympic.org...2: http://en.wikipedia.org...3: http://www.nytimes.com...4: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wrestling should be Removed from the Olympics

I'll be taking the Con side in this debate. Since Pro has not given any definitions or assigned burden of proof, I'll supply them - Pro is welcome to disagree or propose his own in his first round.Wrestling - The Olympic sports of Greco-Roman wrestling and Freestyle wrestling. Removed - Taken out of the Olympic games and replaced with a different sport.Starting - Beginning at.The use of '2018 Olympics' is unfortunate, as the 2018 Olympics are the Winter Olympics, which do not and have not featured wrestling - I imagine arguing that a sport should or should not be removed from something it is not a part of would be very difficult. he 2020 Summer Olympics would be the earliest one where wrestling could (and likely will) be removed. With consent of my opponent, I propose this debate be modified to define 'Olympics' as '2020 Summer Olympics'.I also propose that burden of proof be shared - that is, Pro should prove that wrestling should be removed from the 2020 Summer Olympics, while Con should prove that wrestling should not be removed from the 2020 Olympics.
Prostitution Should Be Legal

Legalization of prostitution would open the doors for much more negativity than you may expect. When looking at the legality of prostitution in the United States, you cannot completely disregard the morality that comes with it. This idea makes STD/HPV viruses much more prone to happen. In fact, evidence from "laws.com" located underneath sex crimes, states that well over 50% of prostitutes have contracted a sexually transmitted disease, while simultaneously having unprotected sex over 300 times every single year. Not only will this be harmful to the prostitutes and the clients, but also anyone who also comes in contact with the said people. The idea of "it is prohibited by law and will always exist in society" is the same excuse as making methamphetamines legal because it always exists. When the law is broken and disrespected, there will be consequential time spent. We, as a human race all have the same opportunity to do whatever we want; be it legal or not. But when one decides to go against the law of the land, there will be negative repercussions. Making it legal because it already exists is ignorant and is almost a form of our government giving up. Furthermore, if the government were to endorse the sale of mostly women, and sometimes even men, they would be going on a downhill slope of regression. Decriminalizing prostitution and calling it safe is a mere illusion for women who endure physical and psychological trauma. In fact, all brothels do is move this abuse inside to mask the horror involved in being a prostitute. The public would be blinded by the systemic issues involved in this act. How could you endorse the spread of HPV, violence, abuse, and exploitation of these victims? How could you say that regulating prostitution would solve "forced prostitution and child trafficking"? Regardless, violence will take place in or out of a brothel and STD's will still swarm the area. If the prostitution industry is grossing over 52 billion dollars a year illegally (bbc.uk.com), just imagine what would happen if it were to be legalized? Generally, the idea of a hypothetical argument must go dismissed, but the numbers have spoken, and they have continued to repeat themselves. And finally, to assume that making prostitution legal would make it easier for women to report rape and sexual injustices, is absolute ignorance and disrespect to those who have fallen victim of sexual violence. The idea of reporting these cases is not easy, and regardless of the legality factor, most acts go unreported because they fear not of going to jail, but of their overall safety. Endorsing prostitution either means you support sexual violence and the spread of STD's or you are just unaware of the horrid activities contained within a brothel. You are blinded that making it legal, automatically makes it safe, but you ignore and disregard the fact that prostitution will never be safe. Thus, it should be illegal.
Prostitution Should Be Legal

A short debate.Not to be confused with the unrelated debate on the morality of prostitution, the debate here is concerned with whether or not Prostitution should be legal.To briefly state my case:Prostitution, whether it is prohibited by law or not, will always exist in Society. There will always be a Demand for sex, and likewise there will always be a Supply of it. Many of the woes that people claim come with legalized prostitution (pimping, child trafficking, forced prostitution) would actually be solved by legalizing prostitution as that the legal stigma would vanish. Both prostitutes and "johns" would have nothing to fear in approaching the police regarding potential crimes. However, those same crimes listed above are made worse when prostitution is illegal, both because of underworld economics and because prostitutes are less likely to go to police when they fear being arrested (as do their customers).
Facebook has made an influence on daily life

Facebook can be a bad thing because of the way people treat eatchother. It can hurt peoples feelings and maybe even ruin their relationships with one another. You are able to post pictures of whatever you would like to show! this is not always a good thing. Maybe you see your friends somewhere in the picture having fun, but your not their, you could get pretty upset. Facebook also distracts people from the work they are suppost to be doing at the time.
Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth.

So I took a decent amount of time to try and create a plan to incentivise companies to hire more people. I call it golden key economics. Please tell me if this would work, or if not, how could it be improved? National corporate tax rate: 30% Tax rate decreased by 1% for every 50k people employed. 1% taxes taken returned for every 50k people employed. 20% minimum tax floor. (Most companies hire less than 500k people anyway.) Small business recognised by sba 50% of taxes taken returned. This is to not treat small business unfairly by taxing them 30% instead, by returning 50% of the taxed income, it's effectively 15% taxes for the small business. This is essentially a form of trickle down economics but to get the tax cuts you must first help the middle class by hiring more. This should drastically cut unemployment and not drop the taxes too low as to not have a federal budget.
We are in the midst of a second Cold War

To clarify I will be arguing that we are in the midst of another Cold War and Con is to argue otherwise, hence the Burden of Proof is on me. Terms: (If Con finds the terms inaccurate or unreasonable then he may alter them but only with a legitimate argument as to why): Cold War: A state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare, in particular. (In this context I will be arguing that such a period of hostility is occurring between the Western aligned powers and Russia/Russian aligned powers) midst: in the middle of.
god exists

Well, looking back at my opponents last debates. I and profile its is obvious he is a troll. So I expect nothng to make sense. And the debate a win. due to trollage. Vote Fool.I will not responed if is nonsense. That doesn't mean I am Forfieting. The debate. But just incase. Principle of Charity is in effect. -Sematic games are out of the question -Strawmens are serious misconduct. -You must quote exactly what you are refuting. -Always assume the best interpretation of your opponent.
Pick Your Own Debate #2

First Topic Nuclear Power should be the most pursued form of alternative energy Second Topic The Marvel Universe superheros could beat the D. C. Universe superheros Third Topic The Paradox of the stone disproves the existence of God I will take the side of Nuclear Power in the First debate Terms: Nuclear Power: The energy produced by splitting or combining atoms in a nuclear reactor . http://www.enwin.com... Alternative Energy:Generally, any source of energy that is not derived from traditional fossil fuels www. globalization101. org/issue_sub/energy/energyglosary/energy_glossary I will take the side of Marvel on the second topic and finally I will take the affirmative position saying that the paradox of the stone does disprove the existence of god Terms: Paradox of the stone:The question can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? . http://www.existence-of-god.com... God:he supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn Omnipotent:having unlimited power wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn Unlimited:outright: without reservation or exception wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn I have one small favor to ask before we begin can we avoid a definition debates that are often obnoxious and result in little enlightenment occurring on either side Thank you again for allowing this chance at debate P. S. You have one of the most awesome profile pics of all time
Pick Your Own Debate #2

In the continuing spirit of impromptu debates, this is my second debate in the "Pick Your Own Debate" format that exists here on debate.org. For those of you who don't know what this is, the debate will run as follows: ROUND 1: Opening introduction and rules. My opponent will post 3 topics s/he wishes to debate, and the position they want to take in that debate. Please provide a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. Make sure to give some basic definitions for any terms that may prove a sticking point as the debate goes on! Also, please make it a generally controversial/debatable issue. I'm sure we all want a reasonably good debate here :) ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of the three positions my opponent proposed. A normal 3-round debate should thus happen as normal. Good luck!