BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Will abolish streaming students into classes of differing academic aptitude.

Let me summarize my opponent's position: There exists an educational system in which youths are segregated based on mental acuity/capacity. This system, according to CON, is wrong in that it is a form of discrimination. It is also wrong in indirectly harnessing an egotistic nature in the students who are on the beneficial end of the segregation spectrum; promoting condescension. My opponent's argument is an invariably moral one, attacking the morality of this type of separation. It also calls into question the implications and impact of such potential elites' moral decisions, paving the way to a society of egotistical individuals who aggressively prioritize personal gains/pleasures over that of the proportionally larger number of lesser-developed society. This is purely theoretical: I may patronize my fellow people, but that doesn't mean I have no moral incentive to sustain their survival, happiness, or well-being. Engineer/philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was known to be one of the most egomaniacal geniuses of his time. He disdained the society of lesser educated people, choosing to mingle with only the more intellectual students. His impossibly high standard to which he subjugated himself and others shaped his life. Under its rigidity, he was able to push himself into spewing original philosophy. He discarded much of his wealth, lived frugally, and frequently worked toward charitable means. Immanuel Kant, although less extreme, was of similar disposition. Kant was also a genius. He was a groundbreaking philosopher who worked tirelessly. Being of very high educational standards, he disliked associated himself with those who are not 'culturally developed'. This bias was so pronounced that he wouldn't even deign to meet his siblings, all of whom he considered unworthy society. He has, nonetheless, given a great portion of his earnings to fund his sisters' livelihoods. This proves that such snobbish people are able to make sacrifices for the greater good of others. My other contention: nothing matters, so this, obviously, doesn't matter either. Nothing is obligatory unless toward a goal. These goals are likewise unimportant. There is no pressing reason for anything at all. I can explain this in further rounds if necessary (just ask, unless you get where I'm coming from, in which case, your resolution is negated), my mother wants her computer. :(
This House Will abolish streaming students into classes of differing academic aptitude.

INTRO Social elitism is a significant problem in the world today, especially in education systems that stream students into different classes of academic aptitude based on examination results. While it's true that pretty much all education systems do this, just on differing extents, the most extreme cases such as those in Asian societies experience the worst when it comes to class discrimination. The sad fact is that the perpetrators and victims of such discrimination are our world's youth. CASE SET-UP The proposition would seek to remedy this situation by abolishing streaming in education altogether. We propose an education system in which students would be enrolled in schools and/or other institutions based on their location or the range of co-curricular activities they have to offer. Grade schools will still be allowed to "compete" in terms of their results, but it will be ensured that grades will not play a part in enrolments. 1st Substantive: There have been many incidents where students in "elite" schools openly look down upon students that are less academically-inclined or go to less prestigious schools than them. This situation is especially prevalent in Singapore, where its small population and "the intense competition in its education system only serve to heighten the frequency and tension of such incidents. Recently there was a case in which a Junior College(JC, equivalent to high school " but only for the top 20% of the cohort) student insulted students from the Institute of Technical Education(ITE, for the "lower end" of students " they learn to be in more technical fields like Culinary, Fashion Design etc) in general on their future career and such. His words can be found here: http://temasektimes.wordpress.com... Such is the sad case of youth who see themselves as high and mighty. They believe themselves to have the right to condescend anyone below them in academic aptitude, and it is these exact youth that will grow up into the next generation of working elites that run the world. If we let them continue as such, how would they turn up?
Apple is better then Microsoft

Apple V. MicrosoftIf you want to get into specifics about this; I will. First, I want to say that I accept the challenge and look forward to with you. Second, you didn't specifically say how Apple is better than Microsoft. Let me show you the numbers first. Apple has generated $13.5 billion in Q2 of this year. SOURCE: (http://www.apple.com...) Microsoft has generated $24.52 Billion in Q2 of this year. SOURCE: (http://www.microsoft.com...) So, Microsoft is winning in terms of cash revenue. INOVATION OF THE TWO:Apple seems to not have released anything new or innovative to bring to the market, besides the iphone and Mac. Microsoft has the Xbox, The Surface, Windows and Microsoft Office to forward their company. It is, at this point, common sense to conclude that Microsoft, at this time, is wining in terms of innovation.
Apple is better then Microsoft

"... also Microsoft quarterly profits are only up because they released the xbox one this quarter..." says Pro. Xbox One came out in Q4 of last year so that argument is invalid. Apple releases the same product year by year and there is nothing new except for maybe a fingerprint scanner which isn't that big of an innovation. The surface made people rethink how laptops should be used and made. Microsoft was a huge game changer with that and because of Windows 8.1. The OS is more efficient and cleaner.
Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill.

Yes, most people, especially white men, back then were racist especially toward Indians. However, that doesn't mean that Jackson tried to help them, because he did. And if you think about it, that is a good thing because Jackson expanded our territory, thus making the country larger. Many presidents before Jackson should be heralded as heroes. I will describe why: George Washington: Commander of the Americans during the revolution, probably the reason why this nation started. John Adams: Helped to write the Declaration and helped construct American government. Thomas Jefferson: Wrote the Declaration and also helped construct American government. James Madison: Wrote the Bill of Rights and is considered the father of the Constitution. James Monroe: War hero, the last founding father, and an important man in government. John Q. Adams: Okay, I admit he didn't do anything special. I understand why you view the Trail of Tears so horribly, most people do. But there still are positive things about it.
Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill.

The reason the decision was made to relocate the Native Americans,was not to help them,it was because they were viewed as a plight on the development of the then Young Nation,which we still are a relatively young nation,but that's a minor tangential interjection. What I'm saying,is that past president's,shouldn't be heralded as hero's,especially from that time period. Just because 1/4 of the Native Americans died,doesn't change the fact,that it was a horrible decision,and I don't believe it should be viewed as anything else,but that's my opinion.
Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill.

Con's overuse of commas makes his argument somewhat hard to read, but what the heck? I'll try. "Did the most damage to the Indian population". Martin Van Buren was the real enforcer of Indian Removal, not Andrew Jackson. Even beside from that, the real reason of relocating the Indians was to help them. Where the Indians were currently living, their hunting availabilities were getting lower, their land was getting worse, and they would've become extinct if they weren't moved somewhere else. Upon being moved to a different land, the Indians had much more opportunities and availabilities to survive. It is not Jackson's fault that many died along the way. Keep in mind that only 1/4 of the Indians that moved died, leaving 3/4, or 75% of all those Indians to live a better life. Also, the Indians didn't reject to move, especially not when they could've. They signed numerous treaties agreeing clearly that they would move.I will now address your argument of you think it's ironic that he is on money printed from a bank, which he was an enemy of. Andrew Jackson was an enemy of the Second National Bank, a bank that no longer exists. Jackson had not been on money during the second bank's life. So it does not matter if the bamnk prints him on money, it makes perfect sense.
Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill.

Andrew Jackson,unlike past presidents,he did the most damage to the Indian Population,with the Indian Removal Act,a law that was passed during Andrew Jackson's Presidency,on May,28th 1830,which moved the present Native Americans,in the southeastern portion,of the United States,west of The Mississippi River,to federal land's. Do you really want a president,like that honored in our currency? Second what i find ironic,about his inclusion on the 20$ bill is that,he had a staunch opposition,to the Banks,yet he his included on Federal Money,printed by the Federal Reserve which is a Private Bank,which the money from the Federal Reserve is then deposited,by citizens into Banks,Bank Of America,Chase,Etc. Isn't that a bit dis-honoring his reputation? And that's taking a devils advocate stance.
Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill.

Why Andrew Jackson does belong on the $20: 1. He was an American hero. Without his commanding during the War of 1812, the war would have ended very differently. Take the battles of New Orleans and Talladega for example, which were commanded by him and were largely won by the Americans. 2. Andrew Jackson largely reduced the nation's national debt. 3. Andrew Jackson is mainly responsible for the creation of the Democratic Party, now one of the two major political parties in America, beside the Republicans.________________________________________________________Countering my opponent's statements:"as his involvement in the Slave Trade, and his utter brutality toward's slaves, is not something that should be honored in our Currency." You have to keep in mind that all presidents before Jackson and some after him had slaves and participated in the Slave Trade. Some of those presidents are even on money today, those being: George Washington, on the $1 bill. Alexander Hamilton (not a president, but major in politics), on the $10 bill. Even Ulysses S. Grant, the leader of the Union during the Civil War had slaves. He is on the $50 bill.I think I made my point. I bet you don't think the people above should be off money, do you?
The need for military intervention in Syria is imperialist in objective, not humanitarian

The Dictionary of Human Geography defines imperialism as "an unequal human and territorial relationship, usually in the form of an empire, based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involving the extension of authority and control of one state or people over another.".[1] Pro needs to show why he believes the US's actions are motivated by this definition of imperialism. John Kerry has called the recent use of chemical weapons a "moral obscenity". [2] This is an understatement, as any morally normal human being would agree. He goes on to say, "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality,".[2] John Kerry, as a representative of the US, is vocally making the moral case for retaliation against the Assad regime for its abuses of its subjects. Obama campaigned as an anti-war president and has clearly shown reluctance to enter into conflict. He likely regrets using the phrase "red line" as it is now forcing his hand in doing things he wishes he didn't have to.[3] A US lead strike against Syria provides an array of disincentives for the US from a diffident and divided U.N., the hostility of Syria's alleys (Iran, Russia, China), and the looming specter of yet another US lead invasion such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The Syrians have made a mockery of the global prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons. Does Pro believe that military action in retaliation for the use of war crimes is simply an extension of imperial aims to control another people? If he does, how so? I ask. The military action would be limited in scope to serve as a simple deterrent to future uses of chemical weapons. There would be no boots on the ground and the operation would not be open ended.[4] With such a limited scope, how does Pro believe that it is possible to characterize the proposed actions as imperial. To summarize my position, the US government has made a moral case that it may use military might to deter future atrocities. (Note that future atrocities may end up being the genocide of the Sunni majority by the Alawites by means of chemical weapons). The civil war in Syria has been raging for two years while the US has dragged its feet, offering the Syrian population little more than rhetoric, though doing virtually nothing to back up it up. And now that Assad is believed to have used chemical weapons to kill roughly 1500 people, the US - because of its rhetoric - is now in a position where it has to do something, or else lose all credibility. Which means it's possible that it might launch a missile or two into some Regime military targets. The US needs to retain a shred of credibility. It clearly wants to do nothing. And to characterize its half-hearted (and heartless) response to Syria as an effort to achieve "imperial goals" is simply a bit much. [1] http://books.google.com... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
God exists.

Dale.G has been gracious enough to include in his profile that he is willing to debate anyone who does not believe in god, so in return I propose this debate.Ground rules:Burden of proof is on Pro. I will note my opponent's correct assertion that the BoP is on the atheist when the debate is in terms of "There is no god." This is not that debate. Burden of proof will be used in tandem with Wikipedia's definition: "the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Semantics:Inappropriate semantics will not be tolerated. "Semantics" has gotten a bad reputation but it is simply the study of meaning and appropriate denotata. Discussions of meaning are welcome, but inappropriate application of meanings (rhetorical trickery or deceptive semantics) will not be allowed and should be pointed out when used. Scope:The god question is the largest that any individual can ask, so I have great respect for my opponent, who is a self-prescribed born-again Christian, in his willingness to discuss such a topic. Hopefully he realizes that many within his ranks and with his label are unwilling to do even that. For this reason, the scope of this debate is wide. If it goes into philosophical inquiries and conflicts, so be it. If it becomes scientific, be that as it may. Be it sociological, psychological, anthropological, metaphysical, or any other legitimate frame, that will be welcomed.On ultimate effects:This is not a debate on whether religion/god, or the idea of such things, is good for the world or if it has been beneficial or detrimental to society. These are interesting topics, nonetheless, but not appropriate in terms of the legitimacy of such claims. The reverse holds, in that this is not a debate on the atrocities committed by alleged atheists such as Pol Pot or Stalin. Simply, this debate is on the existence of god. On deism & pantheism:If my opponent wishes to stray from his personal, specified label of a born again Christian and make the case for deism or pantheism, that is welcomed. However, it will not be allowed (and should be pointed out) if my opponent claims arguments for such positions are said to be parallel for arguments for theism, and I should be charged points if I fail to maintain focus on the argument's tenets with regard to the specific theological proposition as they develop. On sources & justification:All sources are welcomed, but they must be appropriately applied and represented. The Bible, for example, is a fine source, but the nature of a debate (and this debate particularly) requires that such sources be legitimized reasonably and logically. Thus, statements such as "It's true because the Bible says so" will not be permitted unless convincing and rational arguments are put forth to give reason why the Bible should be trusted on these issues.I will conclude by saying that if my opponent wish to begin arguments in his first round, by all means. If he wishes to reserve it for acceptance, I will begin initial arguments. This will be a civil debate, and the voters should consider both my opponent's and my adherence to that stipulation.
God exists.

Well The Proof for visions of seeing the Lord Jesus Christ is Me, I have seen the Lord Jesus Christ in visions and dreams, If you andrewkletzien call out and ask Father God to show you the Lord Jesus Christ to you in dreams and visions Jesus Christ will show himself to you. then once you see Jesus Christ in dreams and visions, then you will believe and have faith God dose exists, and I would like to ask you andrewkletzien have you ever had a dream vision that when you woke up you said to your self wow that dream visions was so real. after I had visions dreams of seeing the Lord Jesus Christ after I woke up I said to myself wow I just seen the Lord Jesus Christ, that dream and vision felt very real when in fact the dream vision of seeing the Lord Jesus Christ is real. andrewkletzien can you prove me wrong well andrewkletzien if you see the Lord Jesus Christ in a dream and visions you would believe God exists that would be a reason to believe in God The Bible is 100 percent accurate and correct for you to trust the bible you need to read the Bible and see that The bible talks about the wall of Jericho The bible says in Hebrews 11:30 King James Version (KJV) 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. / Me Quote now History talks about the Full of Jericho would History lie about such a thing like the full of Jericho the Bible was written way before the walls of Jericho fell thus that is why I believe the bible can be trustworthy plus I would like to ask you andrewkletzien If you knew me personally and if you knew that I had 2 sisters and a brother would you andrewkletzien believe me when I tell you that I love me 2 sisters and my brother. / Me Quote andrewkletzien do you believe me when I tell you that there has being wars and Famines and earthquakes that has happen before and are now happing.
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent persons.

First, my opponent responds with, "The false dichotomy fallacy states that the arguer claims that his decision is one out of only TWO choices. As far as I can discern, the resolution only gives two choices." In other words, he agrees with me entirely (just read it!) and therefore my point regarding his fallacy is completely upheld. This point should go to me. Next my opponent asks, "How can something be inherently wrong, when each persons of right and wrong are different?" This logic does not support his argument at all. If he is arguing that there is no such thing as definitive right and wrong, then he cannot argue that it would be wrong to let more people die instead of sacrificing one. So, I can easily turn his own logic against him here and again my point is upheld. Then Pro argues that I did not defeat his value of consequentialism. This is completely wrong. Back in Round 1 I argued that the consequence (main issue of consequentialism, obviously) of either of our choices is death by choice. In other words, choosing either side would mean that we are choosing for people to die, and that is immoral. Moreover, I mentioned that consequentialism as a value does not hold because it does not define what kind of consequences are good. My opponent's own arguments explain that he agrees with this point. Finally Pro writes, "And as for Utilitarianism, It might be a little cruel, that is true, however the life of one person dose not override the life of five, or even two." Sure tell that to the family of the person who has been "sacrificed." Pro provides no arguments for this claim and therefore there is no basis. I uphold that killing is inherently wrong as it would take away the life of another. My opponent never argued why killing isn't wrong, but given the fact that he clearly values life (as explained in his argument) then my ideology holds. I feel that I have strongly presented my case and urge a Con vote, thank you.
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent persons.

Wow, I'm not really sure how to reply to that, but I'll try. My opponent has claimed that I have used the false dichotomy fallacy. This is incorrect. The false dichotomy fallacy states that the arguer claims that his decision is one out of only TWO choices. As far as I can discern, the resolution only gives two choices, so this is a null point. And second of all, we have to look at the way my opponent uses the word wrong. How can something be inherently wrong, when each persons of right and wrong are different. And then there is war. In a war, people kill and are killed, but is it deemed wrong when our soldiers kill a hostile militant, no it is not. The same goes for the death penalty. I'm not going to debate weather or not is is good, but if the state deems somebody for the death penalty, and it is not seen as wrong. So how can we use a word that is so inconsistent. And furthermore, my opponent has not defeated my value of consequentialism. I have upheld it with the fact that the resolution lets you pick from ONE, or MANY deaths. One, or MANY saved lives. If the means, which is killing one innocent person, are overpowered by the ends, which is many saved lives, then the death is justified. And as for Utilitarianism, It might be a little cruel, that is true, however the life of one person dose not override the life of five, or even two. The act of killing one innocent person is overruled by the amount of lives it has saved. And according to both consequentialism, and Utilitarianism, the act is Justified.