BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Generalist approach > Specialist approach

Is it better to be a specialist in a particular field, or a generalist, that knows alot of things, but lacks depth in any field? I assume, that being a specialist means having a very narrow scope of practical and background knowledge, which is of no help in everyday life. Plus it's really tough to start something over, when you've dedicated your whole life doing one particular thing. Generalists, on the contrary, have basic knowledge of almost every important sphere of human activity, but in fact they lack depth in order to be called professionals or specialists. Generalists have the freedom to choose their future vocation, as they have the foundation for any of them. In the contemporary world there are many specialists as well as generalists. But which of these two categories should be dominant? I'm looking forward to listening to your oppinions.
Evolution should be taught in public schools

My opponent, to argue that evolution is false, has posted a 16,000 character google doc that I assume he wrote. This is terribly abusive because I cannot possibly respond to all of his arguments if I follow the rules of this debate and only use 8,000 characters. This debate was created with the 8,000 character limit instead of a larger one because I do not have the time to debate that much. This limitation was accepted by my opponent by agreeing to this debate, and he has broken it. Even worse than the abuse this creates is it undermines the order that underpins this site. This site has been created, probably with time and hard work, to allow my opponent and everyone on this site a excellent debating service. My opponent has shown that he does not respect the very site we debate on by breaking the rules that make sure debaters do not post arguments too long to respond to. The rules of this site are very fair and encourage good debate. Reject those arguments that circumvent this. The very point of debate is to have a fun, educational, and accessible way to argue opinion and clash mind against mind. My opponent, with his actions, opposes these goals. The traditional role of the voter is to vote who better proved the resolution in order to encourage better debate and maintain these reasons for debate. However, this is faulty when these reasons for debate are destroyed by Con's rule breaking. Fun is removed because I will have to do a lot more work than I allowed for when making this debate. Education is harmed because I must condense my arguments unreasonably small to meet the allowed space and still refute all of my opponent's contentions. Accessibility is damaged due to all the text me and the voters would have to read. The traditional role of the voter is faulty in a situation where one of the debaters ruins the reasons for debate. Voting Con due to his upholding of the resolution is misguided because it only encourages and perpetuates abusive rule breaking instead of what happens in the usual debate where better debate is encouraged and perpetuated. The only way to reject this unfairness and encourage good debate is to vote Pro. Do not let my opponent get away with this by claiming that his doc is merely a source. Good sources encourage fun and accessible debate by providing the warrant for facts that would be impractical to prove on one's own. Rejecting a proper source can be done quickly and easily if it is indeed faulty, and so allows bad facts to be revealed and the truth known. This is a huge plus for education. This source, however, is just a long argument against evolution. To refute it, I must refute each and every point in it which is impossible for me to do with the allowed word count. It does not help education in any way, because Con can and should have just posted his own shorter argument in the allowed space. There would be no difference except this way Con gets to dodge the limits that I chose when making this debate. That is all.
Evolution should be taught in public schools

Schools should not teach false things- so just like a school isn't allowed to teach students that the American Revolution stared in 1957 or that Michelle Obama is a man: it is a given that absurd ideas and baseless speculations should not be allowed to be taught in public schools. This principle should apply to evolution no less, and as has been demonstrated in this essay, {1} that is all evolution is. {1}. https://docs.google.com...
The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party

I would like to speak of my opponent's "dismantling" of my arguments... Before I post my final argument. Strict Construction limits rights. If we still interpreted the Constitution the way it was supposed to be intended, we'd still have separate black and white bathrooms. My opponent has provided no actual court case, just what he believes to have occurred. I don't know when it became the Supreme Court's job to interrupt the Constitution. A lunatic did become president, his name was George W. Bush. By lowering taxes, the government is catering to our needs. Its not protecting us from really anything other than being broke, which we already are. The Republicans do not believe in rights for every single American, this is a completely faulty claim. The ideals have completely changed, read on what the Republican party used to stand for. My opponent just conceded that in the '50s and '60s were largely anti - civil rights - therefore, he has disproved his own point. Republicans still do not believe in rights for every American, again look no further than the gay Americans who are just a little less American due to who the chose to sleep with. It is in the nature of Republican not to have big plans? Wow.... See Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush etc. I would like to bring in my opponent's defense of the strict construction contention. My opponent states how our nation was funded on Christian principles and religion which has made our country so great. Church and state were meant to be separated, therefore they should apply their strict construction. Christian principles and religion have not made our country so great, it is the Christian religion that is at least partially responsible for instilling ignorance. This has had far reaching contact with the murders of Matt Shepard and George Tiller. My opponent is pretty great with the fear - mongering terms - "KILL a fetus". This all depends upon when you believe conception begins which is a discrepancy between "the great religion" of Christianity and the all the others. How about the right to keep the oppressive Christian church out of schools and workplaces? How about the right to have a woman have a choice, after all, it is her body? --"How about the right of the student to where the Jesus - save T - Shirt to school" -- I don't even know what you mean by this statement? Americans clearly did not live in security from terrorists, when we were attacked under the administration of a Republican. How about the right to have a person marry whomever they choose no matter their sex? How about the right to protect and serve their country no matter what their sexual preference? Republicans on a whole absolutely do not seek to maximize the rights of every citizen. Vote for whoever you'd like to vote for. However, I deserve both the source and grammar points due to my opponents numerous errors. My opponent doesn't like messing around with sources because he can't find any to back up his points. Thank you.
The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party

This is such a my dad is better than your dad debate. I will rebut my opponent's arguments first, then present my own. "The Republican Party is obviously the party that favors freedom." He provided minimal evidence from no cited sources. "(a) The Republican Party was founded as an opposition party to slavery (b) The Republican Party supports lower taxes and smaller government (c) The Republican Party believes in the maximization of our personal, ideological, and economic freedoms." I'll start at the bottom and work my way up. "(c) The Republican Party believes in the maximization of our personal, ideological, and economic freedoms." The Republicans believe in a "strict constructionist" philosophy, this means that the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly, which, if anything, limits personal and ideological freedoms. In addition, the Republican Party Ideology has a very traditionalist view. The times change, and open - mindedness is necessary. Therefore, the Republican Party actually limits personal and ideological freedoms. "(b) The Republican Party supports lower taxes and smaller government" Though the Republican Party may support lower taxes, we (the citizens of the United States) are going to need money. Where do you propose we get it from? Trees? If we don't get it from taxes, other methods may not be as efficient or expedient. "(a) The Republican Party was founded as an opposition to slavery" I would like to point out here, that at the time they were founded, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party stood for opposite their current ideals. They have virtually switched their ideologies over time - so essentially, you're saying the democrats made more sense on this issue. My own arguments.... A) The current Democratic platform is more versatile and less traditionalist than that of the Republicans. Democrats are generally progressive whereas the Republicans are not. This means that the Democratic ideology is compatible with today's changing times. In addition, the Democrats are able to promote more personal freedoms.[6] They support gay marriage, are pro - choice and realize the need for the poor and the elderly to be taken care of. Where as the ol' Republican ideology can simply stand for the fact that you'd have to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. B) The Democratic Party believes in the rights of the individual citizen. Democratic beliefs also honor the freedoms of the individual – freedom to worship as he or she may choose, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, freedom of inquiry, freedom of expression, and freedom to participate in the political process. However if you were to look on the other side of the coin, the average Republican would advocate for oppression by religion etc. This is honestly, a very pointless debate. Sources: [6] http://www.democrats.org...
The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party

The Republican Party is obviously the party that favors freedom. (a) The Republican Party was founded as an opposition party to slavery (b) The Republican Party supports lower taxes and smaller government (c) The Republican Party believes in the maximization of our personal, ideological, and economic freedoms. On the other hand, the Democratic believes that: (a) The government should be as large and as intrusive as possible. (b) That the more "wealthy" members of society should be taxed massively to "spread the wealth around". (c) That America should be a totally secular country and that all laws with a basis in religion should be outlawed. I await rebuttals... My sources are the wikipedia pages on either party.
The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party

Resolved: The Republic Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party My opponent's definitions are a little cloudy, so I'm going to provide a couple definitions as well. Democratic Party: The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. It is the oldest political party in continuous operation in the United States and it is one of the oldest parties in the world. Today, the party supports a liberal and/or center-left platform. [1] Republican Party : The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. It is often called the Grand Old Party or the GOP. The party supports a conservative and/or center-right platform, with foundations in supply-side fiscal policies, social conservatism, and personal responsibility. [2] Ideological: of, relating to, or based on ideology [3] Ideology: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture [4] Sense: conscious awareness or rationality First of all, we cannot really measure right and wrong. Who are we to judge right and wrong? Because of the fact that you are a republican, as your name suggests, and I am not, we are obviously going to disagree. So really, this topic is frivolous to debate. All we're going to wind up doing is sitting here basically saying my party is better than your party for these x-amount of reasons. Since my opponent didn't quite post a constructive (as AFF usually does) I will leave this for now and await his response and actually debate in rounds 2 and 3. Can you provide evidence that the Republican party is the party of freedom? Sources : [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) [3] - http://cheetah.eb.com... [4] - http://cheetah.eb.com... [5] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party

Republican Party-The party of former president George W. Bush (2001-2009) Democratic Party-The party of president Barack Obama (2009-?) Basically, the Republicans are right on the issues and the Democrats are wrong. For the sake of this debate we will avoid foreign issues, stick to economics and domestic issues. Basically, the Republican Party is the party of Freedom and the Democratic Party is the Party of Equality of Results. Unfortunately, the Democrat would sacrifice Freedom for Equality of Results. That is all for now, I look forward to this debate...
The U.S should change the legal driving age to 18 in all states

Ok, now I'm annoyed. My opponent allows me to start in a debate that he instigated, and then forfeits his first speech/argument, and ignores mine. And, since this is the second round, I automatically win on default. He can't bring anything new up that he hasn't said before, and since he hasn't said anything, he has to forfeit the third round too, allowing my arguments to fall through everything, so I win on default. Thanks for the debate that wasn't a debate, just me posting and you automatically forfeiting.
The U.S should change the legal driving age to 18 in all states

Since my opponent has not posted anything, and has requested that I begin, here I go. ---- The resolution as stated is: The United States should change the legal driving age to 18 in all states. I"ll start with submitting some definitions for this debate, in order to clarify the grounds on which this debate will be held. The word "should" implies that there is moral or ethical ground to be covered, since this topic asks us the question, should we do it, or should we not. This invariably asks us about an action, and all actions are either moral or immoral. I shall therefore debate this topic on moral grounds. When the resolution states "all states", I take that to mean the 50 states that make up the United States of America. Ok, so I have to show that changing the legal driving age to 18 in all states is morally better than not changing the legal driving age. Here is why: 1. It is in the best interest of the US to take young drivers between the age of 15-18 off the road. It is the government's job to protect its citizens, and having 15 year olds who invariably crash are not helping. So, the US should take them off the road, in the interest of protecting its citizents. There are a ton of statistics on this site I'm going to link to, so many that I need to just ask my opponent to go to the site instead. . http://www.rmiia.org... 2. It is in the best interest of the US to take young drivers between the age of 15-18 off the road. This takes some of the least experienced people on the road, takes them off, alleviating traffic concerns, and overcrowing highways. Therefore, because this helps the majority of citizens in the United States, the US is obligated to do so. 3. The government is protecting the 15-18 year olds who will begin driving and crash, by not letting them drive. If they can't drive, they can't hurt themselves driving, the number one reason that teens die. . http://www.rmiia.org... 4. 15 year old learning to drive are more likely to crash than 18 year olds learning to drive. The 18 year olds possess better judgement, so they will more accurately assess situations than a 15 year old. I'm not saying this applies for all 15 year olds and all 18 year olds, but that is the general fact. Those points alone should win me this, so I'll stop now. Thanks, and I look forward to my opponent's reply.
The Age of Consent in the USA Should Be Lowered to 16

I would argue that this debate is irrelevant. Although I do agree that teenagers should have the right to consent at 16, this is already the case in many states in the US. The difference between the US and other countries is that we can only create laws like this, state by state instead of nationally. Many states choose to keep the consent age at 18, and although that may not be the best choice, more conservative states have the right to make that choice. I am arguing that the decision should be up to the state and the people in that state rather than government as this was the foundation the United States was created on and has allowed for many important things to happen. I would also like to say that although the age for driving is 16 in many states, this is still a decision that was made by the state, not national government and the system that 16-year-olds learn to drive in is different across the board. Some require driving class, some don't, some require you maintain a permit for a certain amount of time etc. This is an issue for a state legislature, not the National legislature.
The Age of Consent in the USA Should Be Lowered to 16

The age of consent is 18 in the USA, an age which is much higher than necessary. People mature faster these days, so 18 is an age by which most are far past puberty and have been sexually active for quite some time. As it stands, each one of them is a criminal for engaging in this illicit behavior. This is not an optimal way to enter adulthood. And why is it that we can trust a 16 year-old to make the correct decisions behind the wheel of a car - where they can easily destroy not only their own lives, but the life of anyone else that happens to be on the road - but we don't trust them to make appropriate judgement calls in their own bedroom, where the only life they stand to ruin is their own? Other countries understand the logic. Sweden lowered its age of consent to 15, Germany and Italy have it set at 14, and Spain has moved it all the way down to 13 years old. Do we really want to be a backwards, fearful people? Because that's what we look like when they look at this archaic and useless law.
International Baccalaureate fails when integrated with American Education.

IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!IB FAILS CUZ IT EEZ TEH SUKZOR!!
International Baccalaureate fails when integrated with American Education.

Schlag is a gay professor that enjoys ranting on and on about whatever the Hell he wants. If you want to make a coherent argument, do something other than copy and paste. I really expected more out of this! Well, first off I can respond to your normative legal thought by explaining to you that the form of this debate is not the matter that is to be debated. By accepting this debate I expected that you would accept the challenge and attempt to further some sort of education by attempting to negate my statement. I will once again wait for an offensive argument to bring up the subject.
Evolution is a fallacy

Burden of proof is equal. Con will argue for Evolution as a scientific theory, Pro will argue for Evolution is a fallacy. For clarify, definitions : 1) Fallacy : a false idea, plausible however uses invalid inferences [1] 2) Evolution : Descent with modification. [2] 3) Theory : A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. [3] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [3] http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu...
The Religious Right is beneficial to contemprary America

"Religious Right? Why limit myself to that" Well, for starters, because it was the premise of this debate? I'll be referring my rebuttals specifically to the Religious Right. Contention a) Viewpoints have always been subjective. Disagreeing or agreeing with the RR is a matter of opinion. However, as I will show below, if that opinion hurts people then it is most definitely wrong, which since you have failed to define what "correct" is, and have associated it with "wrong", I will take it to mean "right", as in conformance with justice or law or morality, and we'll go from there. Contention b) The RR has political influence and has made it's many prejudices into law, infringing on the health, happiness, and rights of many. Therefore their viewpoints actually inflict damage on society. Recent examples are: the bans on gay marriage [http://en.wikipedia.org...] which as you can see here [http://en.wikipedia.org...] has a direst correlation with the presence of red states, which generally have a RR majority. In some cases, they have made it law where one can get fired from their job for being gay [http://www.nytimes.com...]. The RR in Texas has recently begun to change their curriculum so that Civil Rights Activists, and even Thomas Jefferson, are left out of textbooks, which because of TX purchasing power, would influence the entire nations curriculum [http://www.youtube.com...]. As well, they are putting a specifically Christian spin on history, meaning that any children of opposing viewpoints will have to test as though the Christian religion is right, breaking the separation of church and state. So in both of these examples, while they are both definitely promoting discussion, they are damaging people, which is out weights the value of discussion any day. Their out dated convictions have intentionally hurt thousands of people, which by their own standards, is morally wrong. All other laws fall below it. Therefore, the RR is not beneficial to contemporary America, and in fact hurts more than it helps.
The Religious Right is beneficial to contemprary America

Religious Right? Why limit myself to that. .. I'll prove that almost any group endorsing a particular viewpoint is beneficial to Contemporary America. 2 reasons: (a) There is always a chance, however sure you are that a viewpoint is wrong, it is actually correct. (b) Even if a particular viewpoint is dead-wrong, the clash of conflicting viewpoints will stimulate DISCUSSION. This leads to intellectual growth and pursuit of the truth. Yes, under my reasoning, even extremists advocating flat-earth theory and Nazism are beneficial to America! You might disagree vehemently with the Religious Rights, but join me in recognizing the benefits that any dissenting viewpoint carries.