BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
education in motherland is much better

I agree with you in some way. There are great opportunities outside your country where you can fully express yourself and show your talents. As for me in my country people do not notice each other so it is very difficult here for talented people. I agree with you that sheltering is bad. Yes, child can grow really closed up person and will not know anything about the world. But I do not believe that parents will protect their child and hide him in a single room. Each parent should understand that one day his child will go and have his own life. Maybe I cannot accept this point 100% because I never met such persons and parents but I agree that this problem takes place. I am not sure about religion point of view because our country is really multinational. We have almost 120 nationalities and child respect others from the very beginning. I agree that parents will teach their child everything they know and try to teach their opinion. But child while growing (if he has own thoughts) can understand that his parents were wrong still he lives in a society not alone and all people are the same. There are no "the best" and "the worst". Better education" I see what you are saying but don"t you think that if student want to study he will study anywhere, at any time and etc. It all depends on person and how he accepts and sees the world, in which light. If we talk about safety, the problem not lies only in stress. In his country student is well aware about all the dangerous that can be waiting for him. For example, I myself know about bad centers in my city where I should not go. Foreigners are still foreigners. They attract much attention. There are too many cases when foreign students were killed. For instance, on the 11th of April this year two Chinese students were killed in United States. Interesting thing came out about culture shock. No matter how many books you have read about country where you are going to study some things can still surprise you. For example let"s take my English teacher. All her life from school and till university she dreamed about England. She read different books about it, watched films, meet British people. She thought she knew everything about England since she studied it from early ages but when she arrived she was totally shocked. Thing which were described in books were extremely different in reality. Reality differs from everything you learned. I agree with you that human can adjust anywhere still all human being are changeable. But it takes time, a lot of time to overcome adjustment period. What I can say about money" While surfing Internet I found one article which said: some countries do not allow foreign students to have part time job. Don"t know is it true or not, but nevertheless money is a very essential question. And it is very hard to take scholarship. Not so many students are lucky to get it.
education in motherland is much better

CAN ANYBODY ANSWER PLEASE. I need this debate as my homework In my opinion, education in motherland is much better. First of all, you feel calm and safe whereas in unknown country you are under the endless stress. And here lies the culture shock. You face different problems - another country, people, rules, traditions, food, manners, customs, laws, values and etc. This problems crush on you in one single moment and you can't think about education anymore. Stress leads to anxiety, panic disorders, depression, paranoia and other phobias. Any mental problems may become even harder with time. Secondly, money, money and money. Nothing is free. Studying abroad can be really expensive. And I am not talking about the cost of education itself, I am talking about additional expenses like food, residence, flights home and back... Moreover, most countries do not allow foreign students to have a part time job so you need to have some money before you arrive. This is two main things I wanted to raise. Of course, there are others such as a necessity of learning a second language, risk of losing touch with your family and friends, danger to meet suspicious people, differences between universities and so with credits, reversal culture shock and many others. What is your opinion?
Dictatorship is much better than than democracy.

Thanks for your argument, but I think you have not mentioned some issues. First, you saw Hitler as a example. I want to remind you, not all dictators were as cruel as Hitler. For example, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a strong dictator. In 1918, Ottoman Empire lost World War 1st. Mudros agreement was very painful for Ottoman Empire. At this moment, Ataturk began to fight for Turks' independence. And he could. In 1923, Turkey got its independence. Before Ataturk there was a chaos inside country. Some of the groups were very propogating and they caused Ottoman Empire to chaos. The freedom of speech and democracy did not benefit to the country, even destroyed. So, you see, democracy is not always the best political system to live. Furthermore, you are seeing the situation of Ukraine today. There was democracy, so there was not a strong leader to rule the country just himself Yanukovich showed weakness to Ukraine, to Russia, and to whole the world. So, today people are fighting in the streets, and killing one another. One strong dictator can save Ukraine today from Civil Wars and Russia. Dictatiorship does not mean just violence or killing. Dictatorship also requires leadership, to make difficult political decisions in the in dire straits. So, we can see, there bad dicators and good dictators in the world, there good parliaments and bad parliaments, too. In fact, if there is no dictator in country in the whole history, this country will be occupied most probably. My first argument is dictatorship can create a stable condition in the country. It is one of the best ways to defeat rebellions. You know, all rebellions are not right. Some of them even want the country to destroy. So, they begin to stand against government. And what can happen? Some ignoant people can be conceiived, then the beautiful country will destroy. As we saw these situations in Egypt and Lybia. In Luybia, people lived in higher economical standarts in Gaddafi's period. Education and health terapies were free. People were very safe. But some people began to incite them to participate in the rebellions. In conclusion, you saw, the people killed and even tortured Gaddafi's corpse. Now, there is democracy. There are not the higher standarts which was in Gaddafi's period. The country lost previous power and economy. So, dictatiors can keep the stability in the countries.
Dictatorship is much better than than democracy.

Definitions Dictatorship: rule by a dictator : rule, control, or leadership by one person with total power. [1] Democracy: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. [1] You have burden of proof to show that dictatorship is much better, no argument in either of the first two rounds definetely hinders your odds but let's be rational what will end this debate is most likely what i'm about to post. Let's delve into a prime example of Dictatorship: Adolf Hitler: A. To begin his political career, he make a call to nationalism (which basically declared him a fascist) by attacking the treaty of versailles. B. He furthered his political support by aiding the German economy (the Germans felt he alone put Germany back on the map.) C. Now that he had support from the Germans he was a true in-charge Dictator and could do whatever he wished free of opposition, he happened to kill any opposition and he also banned guns to prevent any chance of a rebellion. D. So what exactly did he cause? Answer: The Holocaust[2] Hitler and his Nazi Regime are responsible for the genocide of above 6,000,000 jewish people, simply because he felt they were "an inferior race". Although his main target was the jewish (especially children since they couldn't work, in total 1,000,000 jewish children were killed.). It is notable that he caused the deaths of above 6,000,000 other who he felt were inferior such as homosexuals and non-europeans. I could go on for days, but I strongly believe most readers are fully aware: A. That a dictatorship has no checks and balances. B. That a dictatorship led to the holocaust. C. Of what the holocaust is. D. That you could never find an example of a democracy as bad as Germany under hitler rather yet fulfill BoP needed to show that democracy is far worse than dictatorship. If you do actually attempt to contest any of these points I will gladly explain them in more detail next round. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
god does not exist

Con argues: "We can prove throgh pure killings he orders and performs in many holy books that an omnibenevolent being doesnt exist as the act of killing is evil. Also if god has infinite knowledge than he knows exactly what his creations would do so when he created hitler he knew that he would end up killing A lot of people that being said it would go to prove once again that an omnibelevolent being does not exist." Here I'll give con the benefit of the doubt and assume con is arguing the problem of evil. A worthy argument I'll say. However, any worth the argument may have had is lost in Con's simplistic, and rambling rendering of it here. A stronger case could have been made by pointing out that an omnibenevolent god could not allow the evil that we know has occurred throughout mankind's history. Since it has occurred, we can assume that there was no omnibenevolent, omnipotent god to prevent it. I'd respond, as many debates go here that perhaps such wrongdoings were a necessary evil that actually give rise to some good that we as humans cannot know. A rectification of evil through a divine logic rather than a human one. So on and so forth and maybe that'd entertain the pedantic bunch that may or may not comprise our readership. Sorry to disappoint but rather than project one unoriginal and lifeless argument after another I'd prefer to go about this debate more casually. Anyway, con continues: "One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth." Yes and I'd agree with con. The problem is con is the one who's decided to dispense with logic. Tell me how the notion of something more powerful than the most powerful thing isn't as logically invalid as the notion of a square circle? Their both nonsense. Sure if we're calling god an illogical entity it shouldn't be a problem but then what does truth and falsity even mean in that framework. If I can square a circle and make an entity greater than god than why all the fuss about making something false, true and something true, false? It just means that nothing can really be said about god whatsoever. Finally, con remarks: " Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not." And, just like that, con throws away his position by conceding to the impossibility of disproving the existence of some purported entity. As con was to establish, irrefutably, that god does not exist, so he admits that it cannot be done. I need no longer to win this readerships confidence as I should have already won it with this concession. Thank you.
god does not exist

Pro begins with:" First i shall prove that an omnipotent(all powerful) being cannot exist...1st the ability to do anythig logical. ex. one cannot create a square circle as the shape is impossible to create.2nd the ability to do anything even the logically absurd. ex god can create a square circle."More to the point, he promises to lay out a case demonstrating why omnipotent beings are logically inconsistent. Thereafter, he presents us with a non-sequitor based on a false premise attempting to explain, rather, that an omnipotent being did not create the universe."When applied to god the first definition fails because in order to move somthing in the universe two things are needed mass and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 no mass results in no energy. no energy results in no speed. F=ma no mass results in no force. However if god is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipotent as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of."I'd like to point out a simple correction to the statements Pro made herein. Firstly, mass isn't needed for an object to be moved as a photon is a massless particle which has some energy (E) associated with it, which is directly proportional to it's momentum (p) and the speed of light in a vacuum (c). This correction is merely pointing out that the equations Pro has provided are the Newtonion approximations of the more exact Relativistic equations of kinematics and dynamics. [1]After pointing out this small correction, I'd then like to dispense with this entire section of Pro"s case as it makes no substantive effort to establish the aforementioned resolution "god does not exist". Moving forward now;"when we apply the second definition to god it also fail because if he can do anything even than logically absurd than he can create a being that is more powerful than himself. But if there is still somthing that is stronger than god than god is not omnipotent."Logically absurd is a polite way of saying illogical. The notions of truth and falsity describe only those notions capable of representation by some stated logical framework. Should we throw out the logical framework altogether in an effort to describe god, then we shall throw out the concomitant notions of truth and falsity. That said, this argument is self-defeating. [1]: Section entitled "Mass, Energy and Momentum": http://simple.wikipedia.org...
god does not exist

First i shall prove that an omnipotent(all powerful) being cannot exist. omnipotent has two definitions. 1st the ability to do anythig logical. ex. one cannot create a square circle as the shape is impossible to create. 2nd the ability to do anything even the logically absurd. ex god can create a square circle. When applied to god the first definition fails because in order to move somthing in the universe two things are needed mass and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 no mass results in no energy. no energy results in no speed. F=ma no mass results in no force. However if god is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipotent as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of. when we apply the second definition to god it also fail because if he can do anything even than logically absurd than he can create a being that is more powerful than himself. But if there is still somthing that is stronger than god than god is not omnipotent. What we can conclude from this is that it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist as such god doesnt exist. It is also said that god created the universe. The universe is made up of matter,energy.space and time. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. In logic form somthing cannot come from nothing, 0 does not equal 1. we know this to be 100% true. Now if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed than the only logical conclusion we can draw is that they must have always existed. Both matter and energy exist within time and space so time and space must have always existed. matter,energy,space and time have always existed so therefore the universe has always existed it was not created. if god did not in fact create the universe as it is said in many of the holy books than he has lied. to lie is to steal the truth and to steal is a sin. Tell me if god is supposed to be purely good why does he sin? if we total the deaths he commands in these holy books he has killed more things than anyone or anything on the planet. One such example is the flood he sent to wipe out the earth he had deemed evil. The act of killing is evil so if god kills than he is not good he is evil. But an evil god cannot exist as he is supposed to be purely good so we can conclude again that god does not exist. I know con will probably mention that it is impossible to have an infinite past but there is no evidence to support that claim as our understanding of time is not near complete. furthermore either way there is an infinite past with god or with the universe however the universe is far more likely than god. Nothing can exist outside of time as if something has existed it has existed in some point in time. ex. i have a birthday and eventually i will die so i will have existed in time for x amount of years. And again if god has to obey time the 2nd definition of omnipotent fails again.
god does not exist

1st round is for accpetance The god is one all powerful being.(not zues odin and all those other fun ones) I want someone to logically debate this topic with the rest are for rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals. also if con wants to provide logic to suggest that god does exist he may do so and i will attempt to disprove Also to the voters i want good explinations to the votes. Do not type god rocks as a vote explination. Also for one rule for the con YOU MAY NOT say stuff like pro has failed to disprove this or his pont is invalid. If you think you have disproved somthing than say i believe his logic is flawed wih this point and then explain it.
god does not exist

Whoopsies. Yes, indeed, I'm Con he's Pro. My apologies.Pro argues:"Con fails to understand that good is good regardless of who its applied to. Evil does not have to be commited for good to arise. If i were to go help an elderly woman shovel her drive way for no reward where is the evil committed before hand to make me do the deed? There is no evil committed i simply helped because i could. Evil is not a cause for someone being good."Pro fails to understand that he's scooting the issue. I breifly mentioned about a divine logic rectifying evil. As I'm assuming I'm not arguing against god here (oh but wouldn't that just be so ironic, such a poetic notion.) I'm not going to dock Pro for being unable to come up with a rectifying argument."It would seem con agrees with my statement that it is impossible to disprove the existance of of an imaginary being and as such claims he should win which means in turn he believes god is indeed imaginary so he cannot be disporved. However if we know somthing is imaginary it also means they do not exist. so by con admitting that he cannot be disproved he is admitting he is imaginary and therefore should lose this debate."Not being cheeky or anything, but wouldn't some imaginary man exist by dint of the fact that we're talking about him. That is to say, he has an imaginary existence and, if you'd like, we can say he has a conceptual existence.That said, if this is Pro's argument then I'll take this opportunity to point out the painfully obvious fact that it is question begging. We do not know that god is imaginary, this much should be obvious as you've tasked yourself with proving this point. Not to mention, by admitting it is impossible to prove God's existence I am in no way admitting that god is imaginary. This is what we would describe as affirming the consequent; If A then B. B. That's it, not then therefore A, this isn't if B then A. It just stops there."This was an attempt to describe omnipotent by the definition in which an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even the logically absurd. that being said it is only illogical to surpass infinite but if an omnpotent being can do the logically absurd then he can indeed make something stornger than himself making him not truly omnipotent as there is a level higher than god."'If god can do the logically absurd then the fact that there is a logically absurd so-called "higher level" than him should make no difference. For if this be the case, god can make the logically absurd claim that this "high level" is simultaneously a lower level and still be correct with his logically absurd logic.
Politcal Correctness Is Bad

I think that political correctness is a very bad idea in general. While I can see that people who implemented it meant good. In practice, The Liberal/Democrats use it as a weapon. To silence those who have a opposing political view. In the past few years, We have been seeing the rise of Islamic extremism as more and more terrorist attacks happen by the day. But whenever there is a Muslim who commits a terrorist attack, The Leftists avoid using the term Muslim or Islamic Terrorist. Because political correctness says so. Other case of political correctness is for example. A man who became a woman through a sex change Is still a man. Because biology and medical definitions say so(Look up the term Gender Identity Disorder) But when you say that a biological Male who identifies as a female is still a male. Liberals shout at you and call you a bigot, whenever you simply state the facts. Ben Shapiro once said "Facts don't care about your feelings" Which is 100% True. Whenever I'm not politically correct and I simply state the facts the way they are. I get called a bigot, racist, sexist, and anti-social justice. All of those terms are just buzzwords. Liberals try to get you to shut up by calling you those buzzwords because no one wants to be a bigot, racist and sexist. So this is a weapon that is used to silence those who don't want to sugarcoat everything
The Federal Reserve is Ruining America

Sources : THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR COUNTRY" By Frank A. Rexford -- 1924 I believe the federal reserve system is destroying America, and has been since it's birth. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." The government can now take everything you own if you don't pay them, wait the money doesn't even go TO the government. It's given to private owners, not the American citizens and an even better example -- after the Federal Reserve act was first passed in 1913, America declared bankruptcy(1) around 20 years later. Proof this system was draining money away from the US and making the wealthy even wealthier. We put the control of our money to the BANKS. We essentially are owned by the banks. Not to mention, the extreme counterfeit of money we print and give out on a daily basis. We don't even have gold to back up anything with other countries. Sources : (0) http://www.barefootsworld.net... (1) http://goo.gl...