BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschooling is better than conventional education

To help show the flaws of my opponent's speech lets do this on a line by line. Let's start with all of there bullying claims accord to StopBullying. Gov that because of the absence of strict rules in the school system the administration has little to no power to help victims of bullying. Then they say that they need to stand up for themselves, But as a victim of bullying my self I know that sometimes standing up to a bully can make things worse, And even sometimes you can't stand up for yourself. Then they that you can transfer them to another school, But means moving, Which causes a financial burden, Loss of friends, Which causes anxiety, And maybe more bullying, Witch just starts this whole vicious cycle all over again. The only reason my opponent gives for my answers is that homeschooling is extreme and that regular school is conventional, But conventional doesn't always mean better, According to the Huffington post that homeschooling allows for personalized teaching and overall is typically better on the child overall education than "conventional education" as my opponent puts it. Then that even judged by society to not be judgementally my opponent blames the student for being homeschooled. Then on to my opponents points about the cost of homeschooling. One, According to Bureau of labor statistics 4. 7 million families have at least one unemployed member that means that for a large chunk of America a family member would not have to leave work. Then on to their claim of financial stress, They contradict themselves by saying that a way to solve bullying, The main problem with public schooling, Is to transfer school, But also a ton of money and school supplies are cheaper than a house or apartment, Typically, As well as the fact that online schools will offer scholarships a lot of the time and so that help lessen the only true "problem" my opponent has given me. Then on to my opponents claim for spending time, It isn't true the child can go out with friends when he is done with his schooling as well as during the weekend the child would not spend all of his time with the parents homeschooling, Or not. The only reason my opponent gives for my answers is that homeschooling is extreme and that regular school is conventional, But conventional doesn't always mean better, According to the Huffington post that homeschooling allows for personalized teaching and overall is typically better on the child overall education than "conventional education" as my opponent puts it
Homeschooling is better than conventional education

Bullying is a definite issue in American schools, But homeschooling is not the only possible answer to this problem. Parents can talk to the administration or the parents of the bully to make them aware of what's happening, Teach their kids to stand up for themselves - which is a very important skill - or transfer them to another school, If nothing else works. All children have the right to feel safe in school. Taking the opportunity of getting a conventional education away from kids is a bit extreme, In my opinion (if they don't ask for it themselves, Of course). Also, You can't guarantee that kids who were homeschooled are "bullying-proof". Homeschooled children are often treated differently by society, So they may find it hard to fit in and start feeling self-conscious. In addition, In order to teach children at home, One of parents will probably have to leave their job, Which is a hard hit on the family budget. Plus, Count the costs for all of the school supplies like books, Teaching materials, Stationery, Computer programs, Etc. Parents have to organize lessons, Tests, Even field trips. They will have to be able to answer all the questions their kids come up with, And if they can't, They'll probably have to hire a tutor, Which can also be very expensive. So, It's a lot of hard work and clearly not everybody can deal with it. Some parents also think that homeschooling is a great idea because they will be able to spend more time with their children, But constantly being around parents may be overwhelming and stressful for kids, They may need to spend some time apart. Same goes for parents.
Homeschooling is better than conventional education

Nowadays, The practice of teaching kids at home is becoming more widespread. Seems like modern parents are a bit too overprotective of their kids and want to save them from all the burdens of traditional school. But does it do them any good? I am a firm believer that every child (without mental or physical disabilities) should have a "conventional education experience". Firstly, Children in traditional schools have a wider circle of friends, Or at least a bigger opportunity to be friends with people they actually like, And not just stick with kids from the same homeschooling community, If there even is one to begin with. Secondly, Homeschooled children miss out on many extracurricular activities (sports, Chorus, Different school clubs, Even prom and homecoming). Homeschooling isn't any easier on the parents either. They have to sacrifice a lot to be able to teach their kids at home. Overall, I believe that conventional education is the perfect opportunity for kids to socialize and get knowledge from professional teachers and for parents to be able to provide for the family.
should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship

I think you forgot the topic question. "Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that "illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us." Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.
should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship

I'm not against immigration thank you very much. I'm against illegal immigration. illegal immagrants take up jobs that are for us that are legal and thanks to Obama we have less jobs and they are taking them, and i live in Colorado were there are a lot of illegal immigrants here because we are really close to Texas and Arizona, and this is true because i have friends that are illegal immigrants. now i think that immigrants that were brought here illegally when they were small children should be granted citizen ship because they had no choice, because they were children. this is my closing argument.
should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship

You stated that "if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of the illegals coming from Mexico." I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that American citizens are required to take additional shots due to the influx of immigrants coming in from Mexico. You also stated that "plus, all the illegals are taking up the jobs a legal American could have which puts more American citizens into poverty." Most economists in America will find this statement utterly ridiculous. The Brooking's Institution's Michael Greenstone, said that, and I quote, "on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and income of Americans." Immigrants (whether they are illegal immigrants or not) increase the job opportunity's for Americans, because they start businesses and hire more workers. Our goal shouldn't be to send back the immigrants, but to welcome them. It's our responsibility to give them more chances to become lawful American citizens. It can take years for close relatives of U.S citizens to obtain Immigrant Visas. This difficult immigration process only encourages people to immigrate illegally. You also state that "also the illegals don't have to pay taxes." That's my point exactly! If illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship, then they will pay taxes! Many illegal or undocumented immigrants actually pay income and sales taxes anyhow. On average an immigrant, regardless of status, will pay 80,000 U.S dollars more in taxes than they use in government services over the course of their lifetime.
should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship

i think that all illigles should be sent right backk to were they came from. i think this because if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of all the illigles coming from mexico. i dont know about you but i don't like getting more shots. plus all the illigles are taking up the jobs a legal american could have which puts more american citezens in to poverty. how would you feel if you went in for a job interview and some illigle took the job before you could. also the illigles dont have to pay taxes wich means they can can live in a house and not have to pay taxes on it wich can also hurt our economy. the people that want to come here sould have to wait like everybody else to come here legaley.
should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship

How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.
Abortion should be legal.

Remember that Con said "Remember that I gave three evidences in order to prove that the unborn is a human being. All these three evidences goes completely unanswered and unrefuted by Pro. Thus, I extend them all." I did not refute your past evidences for two reasons -- they were not reputable enough, and they were answered by way of bracketed refutation. The definition of unborn (the bracketed refutation) provided all that needed to be provided to prove you wrong, thus my assertion that your best and most equitable option is to surrender, which you countered by claiming I should do what you should do. Yes, as I have implied by way of my comment that you should surrender, providing the definition of "unborn" does, in fact, prove that the unborn isn't a human being in compliance with philosophy, and in compliance with fact. Not only does the definition prove the fact, but the philosophy contained within the definition thereof does as well. The moment the individual exits the woman's genital, they are human -- not before. To say so is to conquer absurdity. "It is a human being and is alive inside its mother's womb, but it just hasn't been born yet." Exactly. You have now proven yourself wrong. A fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital. Not before. It could be anything in the womb. It could be an alien. As absurd as that may sound, and as factually inaccurate as that may be deemed, it is still not as absurd as what you claim.
Abortion should be legal.

Remember that I gave three evidences in order to prove that the unborn is a human being. All these three evidences goes completely unanswered and unrefuted by Pro. Thus, I extend them all.Now, let's move on to what Pro said in his third round. Pro said that the unborn is defined as "still to come in the future." Apparently, according to my opponent, this proves that the unborn isn't a human being. However, does this definition of the unborn really prove that the unborn isn't a human being? Absolutely not! This definition of the unborn only means that the unborn hasn't been born yet; that is, it is still in its mother's womb. This is what "still to come in the future" means. It doesn't mean that the unborn isn't a human being; rather, it only means that the unborn hasn't yet been born to the real world from its mother's womb. In no way does Pro's definition of the unborn show that it isn't a human being. It is a human being and is alive inside its mother's womb, but it just hasn't been born yet.It's really funny to see Pro claiming that I have been beaten because of this. On the contrary, it is Pro who has been beaten, because (1) Pro has completely ignored all my three evidences which scientifically proved that the unborn is a human being, and (2) Pro's claim that the unborn is not a human being because of the definition which he gave, have clearly been refuted and been shown to be completely unreasonable.
Abortion should be legal.

You're welcome, Con. I am always delighted to provide uniform and trustworthy proof to provide substantiated and substantial proof that my claims are, in fact, true. According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., the unborn is defined as "still to come in the future." With the inclusion of this assertion, I'd suggest you surrender because you're being beaten and battered with the overwhelming facts. A world where scientific anecdotes and "proofs" slay dictionary assertions does not exist. If you deny the definition of a word, then you really don't own the right to provide your own presumed connotations by way of "scientific evidence." Therefore, with the dictionary proof that the unborn contradicts your position on the "existence" of human beings BEFORE birth, you have now been officially and definitely been proven wrong. Anything you say from the next turn on will be an insertion of negation.
Abortion should be legal.

If the fetus is a viable and legitimate human being, then sure, it should be illegal; however, there is evidence to provide viable and unvilifiable proof that it is indeed not. To quote http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org..., "this assumption is deeply flawed." Fetuses are indirectly human beings; however, there is no proof to survey or draw presumptions upon the EXISTENCE of direct evidence that babies, before birthed either via vaginal or caserean, are, in fact, human beings. Why is it absurd to draw the conclusion that fetuses aren't human beings when there are viable internet sources to prove the contrary? I don't believe Peter Singer is going by his ideological philosophies if he indeed said that "(...) in this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo/fetus conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being," even in spite of evidence from school health books, no matter how supposedly 'accurate' they may be. David Boonin, who you asserted is also a "pro-choice philosopher," also seems like he's been struck with the same political disease Peter has, because he asserted that, "a human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development." You have denied yourself the right to vilify my assertion that humans should have "unalienable rights," especially since you said "(...) is something which the fetus should be given too," "because as I have clearly showed," and "the fetus is also a human being." Are you trying to contradict yourself? Exacly, sir, woman wouldn't be given the right to "(...) kill an innocent human being" -- if indeed it is "true" that an UNBORN fetus, that is NOT ALIVE, is not a human being. Your conclusion, in complaince with your other inserted assertions, is a) without viable proof and b) without more than one fabric holding your argument. Therefore, with all of this being said, I now contend that fetuses aren't human beings. What they are will not be ever known. After all, one cannot crawl back into one's woman's private part and travel back to see first hand how their experience was, so how can one find out unless you're like "Stewie Griffin" from "Family Guy"?
The creation of a utopia is impossible

To make sure you understand this we are showing our final evidence. No rebuttals. Only evidence. You may restate any previously said evidence but it cannot be rebuttal. Thank you for debating with me and I will jump right in! Utopias are the idea of creating a perfect society. To do this, there are several things it must have. Perfect living conditions, perfect people, and no loss of life or limb. This statement goes with one of the main statutes of economics: economics is the study of how to fulfill unlimited wants with limited resources. Everyone will always want more or to do something better and so we cannot reach a perfect state or Utopian society. We are a progressive species and we know this especially now. Humans will grow but always retain the ability to destroy themselves once again. In the ancient world, there were studies in science that had not occurred in society ever before. It was a perfect storm that allowed the era of people during the days of the Library of Alexandria to make advances that we still have not entirely learned ourselves. Greek fire is the most obvious example. We still have not gotten a complete idea about exactly how it was made. The burning of the Library was and still is the largest setback for human kind. We lost thousands of years worth of work and writings along with the more recent(at the time)discoveries. While a library burning down today and setting back all of society is unlikely, we do have the capabilities to be set back again. We have created enough nuclear bombs to make Earth uninhabitable for twice as long as it has existed. The human race is also for famous for being human. We cannot make a perfect society without perfect people and many people have tried to solve this problem including Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jung Un and his father before him. They are trying to make a Utopian society with the name of Communism behind it. If we look at North Korea we see a people in total oppression, fear, and no freedoms. I believe that a perfect society is not achievable through force or fear but must be one that is created only by freewill. People are known to be stubborn and no one wants to be told what to do. The progression of humankind cannot reach a Utopian state when humans are still humans. Good luck and thanks for the healthy debate! I hope to do so again:)
The creation of a utopia is impossible

The issue is this: By insisting that the definition of Perfection be limited to individual perception, you leave a gaping problem for yourself: Either, Utopia/Perfection is Objective and we may fail to realize it (my definition,) OR Utopia/Perfection is Subjective. If that's the case, then Utopia is actually much more possible. We need only persuade all people that regardless of how awful their lives may be, they are dwelling in a perfect state, then that state will be Utopia. Even easier, we need only kill all the people in the world save 1 or 2, and then, by suicide or murder-pact, have those two individuals overdose on Morphine. For the brief moment in which they have their last seconds, Utopia will be realized. I would suggest for your sake, and the sake of this debate being less silly, we focus on what may be objective. Utopia may, however unlikely, be one day objectively possible. Perhaps not everyone will know it when we're there. Perhaps someone will always be malcontent. But unless we let that one person's perception define all of reality, it's silly to say that this person somehow undoes a Utopia. And if we DO let that one person's perception define all of reality, why are we using that person as our baseline? We've a society with 100 million happy people but one person is unhappy no matter how that society flexes to adapt to his wants or needs, and therefor we declare that society a failure as a Utopia? That's patently absurd. To answer your opening round example of the psycho-killer versus the peace-lover: a perfect Utopia could easily grant simulated murder indistinguishable from the real thing to the psycho-killer, or, alternately, somehow change that tendency in the individual. By the hollowest definition, a Utopia could be any culture that can simply "edit" people to the point where they are happy, rather than relying on anything concrete to deliver that happiness. Any way you slice it, Utopia remains the same: Unlikely, but, technically, possible.
The creation of a utopia is impossible

Alright, to start, thank you for following the set up and being patient with my response. Now to the debate: First:"I will predicate my argument on the notion of human progress. However unlikely a true utopia may be, I would contend that it will ultimately be possible in the fullness of time. Consider the more miserable ages mankind has lived through: The Dark Ages, the era of chattel slavery, the great wars." The idea of human progress is an entertaining one and has plenty of history to back it up.The problem is, though, that human progress is always just that, progress. Getting to a perfect state is a feat that truly would be the greatest human achievement. Mankind has evolved to heights that previous ages could only have dreamed of but there is still problems in this world. Let us imagine we are like the people in the Middle Ages. The life we have today may seem perfect to them but the people of today certainly do not. If you don't believe me, watch the news. There are problems and disasters almost every day. Second: "To a person living in any of these times, our society may well seem like a true Utopia. Consider that if your day-to-day concerns are acquisition of food, threat from predators and sickness, then modern day America has almost eliminated all of these. We need fear only the worst and rarest diseases, mostly at the end of a long life, food is arguably too abundant, and predators are in cages at zoos. We've invented NEW concerns, like having enough money, or moral decay, or obesity, it is possible we would always invent new concerns, but I'd like to believe in the fullness of time our troubles will be no more pressing then the kinds of disagreements we see on this very website." The first thing I have to say is that in the first sentence you expressed one of the main points in my original statement. The idea of a Utopia is also an opinion about what one believes. The Utopia of Modern belief is one where no one would die, everyone got along, and there was no wrong. The idea of a Utopia then was one with no more feudal lords, no more sickness, and no need to work on a farm everyday. The whole idea of a Utopia becomes higher standards for one main reason; everyone wants what they can't or don't have. I believe my last two statements also work for the last statements he makes and so I conclude my rebuttal. Over to you Pro!