BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Development of the country means developing the villages

I disagree with the motion. Development of a country should focus more on cities (urbanization), rather than on developing the villages. Firstly, urban development is the key of increasing the economic benefits of the citizens. Villages often focus on primary productions, such as agriculture and fishing. Due to the worsening of global warming, these productions are believed to face difficulties in the future due to climate change, which leads to extreme weather. The profit of these productions are decreasing. Development of the cities (urbanization) can produce more job opportunities for rural citizens, causing a population shift towards the cities. Cities normally concentrates more on secondary and tertiary productions (manufacturing and service), which is unconstrained by environmental conditions and thus the salary is much more stable. In addition, villages/ rural areas should not be developed to prevent destroying the natural scenes and the environment.
Should America pay reperiations to African Americans

Hell no! Anyone can apply and receive welfare whether they deserve it or not. African Americans specifically deserve to be at least acknowledged of their hard work and inventions as well as be compensated for their ideas that. Which were stolen, by the way, by the very same people who are trying to kill them off as we speak. Now I'm not saying all white people are bad , but the ones who stole are and have stood on African American's backs for far to long. I think its time African Americans stood up and knocked them on their asses.
Should America pay reperiations to African Americans

Reparations should be paid to African Americans they are a people who have been through a lot for this country. They have contributed over half of things we use every day and never go the credit they deserve. That reason alone is should factor a major part of why their families should be compensated in some way , shape or form. In addition to that they have been beaten not just in slavery but today still their families deserve to be at least consoled for their losses from HATE CRIMES! Finally, even though you might think it to be a burden to pay for past crimes it really wouldn't be in fact it would just stimulate cash flow and create jobs to verify all of the necessary information just to name one profession.
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

Con has argued that many of the majors I listed that did not require advanced math actually did because these majors were so frivolous that one would be relegated to an office job which in his mind would force them to use advanced math. The fact is, that doesn't happen often and Con later admitted this. He admitted that it takes a certain type of major to require advanced math. He used architects as an example in the very first round. Which I never denied. However he kept listing the few majors in which advanced math was required, eschewing all the other countless majors that you really would never use any type of advanced math. I could use an example of psychology major. Often times, psychology majors become counselors or therapists. You absolutely do not need calculus to become a therapist. Con will almost certainly claim that you do by misassociating psychology with psychiatry. Do not be deceived in this. A major problem that Con has in this debate is the difference in educational policies in New Zealand where he lives, and Texas, where I live. He even said so. New Zealand has different policies. So this makes it very difficult for either of us to effectively debate this topic. Never the less, any example I came up with to counter Con's stance, Con tried to refute by saying, you won't be able to achieve this or that and you will only get office jobs which utilizes so many different maths (which you won't). And therein lies the problem. English majors, RTF majors, History majors, Music majors, Art majors, and countless other majors, just simply will not ever use advanced math. Not to mention, NOBODY uses advanced math in every day. Just simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division is all that is needed to do taxes and balance a check book. there's an old meme i saw a few years back that perfectly describes my point: Things I never learned in High School: How to do taxes What taxes are How to vote How to write a resume and cover letter Anything to do with banking How to apply for loans for college How to buy a car or a house But thank my lucky stars, I can tell you all about Pythagorean Theorems As you see in the above meme, this is what the American School system believes is important. And yet no one can tell you when the last time they had to use Pythagorean Theorem In Business, math is used, but as I stated in the last round, the only thing anyone needs to know in X+Y=Z when it relates to a price markup, is Z. You will never need to figure out what X or Y is, it is already given to you. However, math classes which college students are forced to take, they must figure out what X or Y is, and that does not relate to anything outside of that class. You will never need to know this. And that is why basic math is really the only thing that matters when it comes to math classes
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

In everyday life, for a large number, no. But on rare occasions, it is still needed by the majority of people. And when needed, without proper education, people lack the ability to handle these occasions. And however rare they are, you still need to prepare for them. Students are not inclined to take maths as an option. So a few compulsory things here and there are very, very important, for the sake of making sure you know the advanced stuff for when it comes in handy. For instance, in this technologically advancing world, many would later like to become coders, (Google is covered in storied about people leaving their normal jobs for coding related jobs. One example being http://www.quora.com... although no one example can really show the bulk of how many people want to start coding jobs.) which is very difficult to do without huge amounts of maths, in particular the advanced stuff which normally is rarely used. But few of these will actually choose mathematics, as they don't actually link coding to maths. Maths value in other subjects is vastly underestimated. It can help with your logic, which helps in several subjects. Although English takes 1st place, since it helps in essentially every subject, maths is the second most universally helpful subject. So in many circumstances, advanced mathematics is in fact used in everyday life- particularly if you count the logic it teaches. And it can be important in places you would not expect- I point particularly towards a previously mentioned example of Youtuber. Advanced mathematics is essential in a lot of odd places. In response to your example about X, Y, and Z, in business and economics. The thing is that "Z" is the one that matters- but generally stores tell you about "X". It is a formula for working out what "Z", the actual price is, based on the normal price, which is "X". So the formula you present is in fact supporting evidence of a good use for advanced mathematics.
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

The fact is, you simply DO NOT use certain maths in everyday life. Unless you get joy out of doing it, when is a regular person ever going to need to know how to multiply, add, subtract or divide polynomials? The answer is almost never. Now, there are a select few degrees where this sort of thing is useful, I won't deny that. But the people who will be voting in this debate need to understand, I never said advanced forms of math were never useful. Just for the majority of people, they aren't. Another thing I must add is, when you take something like something for economics or business, x+y=z x being cost of something, y being a percent of a markup on x and z being the total price of x+y, all you may ever need to know is what z will be. you will never realistically need to find x or y. This is the kind of thing that is in American text books. x+y=z is basic. being forced to find x or y in that formula is not, and it is unneeded.
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

As stated before, Basic math should be the only requirement for MANY college majors. I never said you wouldn't need more than the basics for ALL majors. an architechture major, an engineering major, sure. But there are plenty who don't. An RTF major (radio, television and film), a music performance major, a music business major, english majors. The list goes on. To hit upon the example Con tried to refute that I made, let's take the english major. What does an english major do? Perhaps he could become a grade school english teacher, a middle school english teacher, a high school english teacher. An english major could have a concentration in creative writting. Maybe they go into some journalism field. Now, Con did try to make claim that an english major would need to "understand the depth od the stats they have". That sounds more like something that would come out of reporting, which is something a journalism student, or an RTF student may need to do. But I have to ask the question: If they are only reporting on certain things and certain stats, why would they need to "understand" the "depth" of said stats? Surely that is not the point. So the question is, why would someone like an english major, a music major, an RTF major, a music business major, etc. need more than basic math? Regardless of what Con thinks of these fields as viable majors, he needs to explain how something like Algebra or Calculus or any other form of advanced math is needed. He cannot keep drawing up these hypotheticals about office jobs. Not everyone in these fields will be getting an office job. Some of them may not want to settle for an office job. Con's personal opinions of these fields do not matter, and these office jobs hypotheticals do not matter either. I do not see how these points are relevent. Parenthetical- the majors I have listed are not limited in this debate. There are so many others I could name, such as a criminal justice major or a law major or a history major
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

Clearly you live by different rules than NZ. Yr 12 onwards, maths is optional in NZ. The fact of the matter is that employers don't care if "Oh, I can solve an inequality" But the fact that you earned a degree in a field viewed as so complex by so many does matter to an employer, regardless of whether the work relies heavily on maths. So it does influence employers psychologically. Maths is, quite simply, needed for the vast majority of office jobs. Basic maths is enough for most jobs- but you don't get paid as high as you might hope for "enough". "Enough" can be done by anyone. So in a way, "Enough" is actually nowhere near enough. While I can't say I agree with them forcing you to do algebra, it can be said that complex maths is a useful skill to have. If something goes badly in your preferred career, then office jobs are the go to for someone with a degree. But they aren't going to be impressed by the basics. In fact, the example you present, an English student, will need very much to know maths inside out. A large quantity of those go to office jobs, to write up brilliant reports. And unless they understand in depth the stats that they have, unless they can fully understand the meaning inside what seems to most to be gibberish, the job goes to the next English student in line who did understand the numbers they were given.
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

I recently got back into college and am forced, due to state rules, to take a sole class called intermediate algebra in order to go on to other classes. As stated, I was a music business student. I am now a kinesiology student. And while I am not 100% sure how much math my new career path will entail, I know that when I was a music business student, I did not need anything beyond basic math. This is true for so many other degrees as well. This translates into everyday life as well. My instructor this semester answered the question of "why do i need this class" and her answer was simple: "because someone else does need it". The answer was simple, but unacceptable. Why do I, whether I was a music business student or a kinesiology student, care what an economics student needs? Why do I care what as per con's example, what math an architect needs? I don't. So why should I be forced to do the same math as him? Again you have to think of real world applications. Why would an english student need to know how to factor a 15 term polynomial. Now I am sure there are a select few career paths where you would need to know that craziness, but, the majority of us will NEVER have to know this. And same goes for needing to find 3 consecutive odd intergers that equal 143. It is pretty rare to find an employer who will be impressed with you saying "oh I can solve an inequality!" If college is to prepare us for the real world, then the level of math needed should be on a case by case basis for the reasons I have stated above
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

It's one I really like the look of, and hope this will be a good argument. A good understanding of maths can get you a lot further in the world than a good understanding in art. Pretty much every office job requires that you understand maths at a deep level. Art based jobs are relatively few in numbers. And although I haven't done research on this, I'm willing to bet that art doesn't help a lot towards maths majors. Fair enough if you want to go into music business, but again, maths is arguably the second most important subject, shortly behind English. Does music have it's values? Certainly, and I hope you get joy out of whatever music career you can find. But the number of employees who will be impressed by a maths major are plentiful- and it would lose some of that magic to employees if suddenly maths degrees were only about the basics. Also, you say that going into stuff like "algebra, geometry, trig, etc. " is outside the basics. Algebra consists in practical terms of working out a formula. That has many, many uses outside of school. Knowing that if something structurally needs x width based upon what y area is, that could help in architecture. Knowing that a certain food product goes best with x garlic and q butter based on what z, the quantity of the product is, can help in so, so many ways. So algebra is needed. Geometry? Again- think about architecture. Trigonometry? That means that an architect can work out on a calculator in seconds what the other angles need to be. It's not that simple, sorting what you need and what is excess. That's because there is no excess. As they become excess, they become obsolete. So all the ones that aren't needed in basic life are already gone.
Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors

I do not believe many, if not most, college majors should require anything above a basic math competency. Going into stuff like algebra, geometry, trig, etc. , does not do any good for a history major, Art major, english major, or what I studied, Music business. It is a little too much and it even caused me to leave college for 3 years. Con is going to have BOP and have to explain and defend his position
A country shouldnt have the ability to ban games

The government shouldnt decide anything relating to games.. how the market forces react or who it needs to protect when it comes to games.. Video games dont have a bad impact on anyone at any age. Not an impact that lasts in the long run. I saw relesearch into TV violence (or game violence) and video games, there is no convincing evidence to ban or reduce the play time of video games. In fact, cognitive research shows that video games improve perceptual capabilities. Why should a video game be rated? and something like a news program not. People dont learn passively from watching some GTA cut-scene or a shooting scene. People learn actively from the news they watch, the politics they understand and the unfolding relationships around them. Unless the game, has porn in them, then it should be rated for mature audience or may be banned from the shelves. So apart from, having a boost in mental skill and generation of income for the suppliers. They have no bad effects. Video games are a sport nowadays and more popular in some countries like S.Korea. Do you see that pro-gamers who play COD and CS:GO heavily, go and shoot people? Politicians have been attacking violent video games for decades, and without success. Thats because video games dont lead to violence. Violent individuals who are prone to crime regardless what game they play or play games at all, commit horrific crimes. I heard only of one person who went on a killing spree and played manhunt 2. He was russian and now in a russian jail for killing 14 people. He said he was under the influence of the game. But to shoot someone in the game and in real life is completely different. I fired a gun when I was a soldier, after I played many shooting games such as GRAW 1 & 2 and manhunt1 & 2.
A country shouldnt have the ability to ban games

I disagree with you. In certain countries such as Saudi Arabia it would be acceptable to ban a game like GTA since the game itself goes against the religion of the country and since nobody there would even want to play it. In other countries such as Australia there are many people who hate certain games (GTA for example) and would not even dare to let their children play it so why should they keep a random game in their country that pretty much everyone hates? If you ran the Australian government would you keep a game that a lot of people hate?
A country shouldnt have the ability to ban games

I dont think that a government should have the ability to ban games. Games like Australia, China and some other countries banned games before. Many countries banned the game such as Tom Clancy"s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Postal 2, RapeLay. It is my right to buy any game that I want, same as you can watch any movie or read any book that you want. There should be no restrictions on video games. The producers can produce anything that they want. Hilary Clinton and Joe Bidden showed interest in banning violent video games. I beat manhunt 2, GRAW 2, Postal 2 and would like to see a decent sequel to those games or more games like that.. I also want to see more blood in games like battlefield, and more realistic deaths. It is just entertaining. I also like insane ideas in games, even if they are violent. So whats your arguments for banning games?
A country shouldnt have the ability to ban games

Your argument is very poor. Adults would swear in the same way, with or without your video games being present in their childhood. I gamed a lot when I was a child, and I am familiar with people who swear twice as me, and who spent their young lives playing with dolls, watching programs like poo the bear, and reading children books. " if they are too extreme on what they show" What do you mean by that? You want something extreme, just leave your virtual reality and watch the news, or host shows like Dr.Phil. A person learns from real life events, truths and reality of things. Not from some game that shows too much blood. "Trust me once you've actually done something once that advocates bad behaviour your likely to try it " I studied enough psychology to know that it is absolute nonsense. Do you hijack cars the same way as when you play GTA?
A country shouldnt have the ability to ban games

Violence is only a part of it. I had a friend who played GTA a lot and they started to use a lot of sexual terms and swear words. Does a parent really want their kid to do that? No! So why should they let them play games that influence that bad behaviour? Also the government should ban certain video games if they are too extreme on what they show. Trust me once you've actually done something once that advocates bad behaviour your likely to try it again.
Incest is NOT Wrong

You're not being disrespectful. I just like to say it at the start of debates I do, so it doesn't sound mean or anything. :) . Actually, kids are relevant to this discussion, because you have said "There is no harm in two (or more, lol) legally consensual persons having a relationship or getting married." If it is legalized, then just as gay marriage was, it will eventually be fully accepted. Do you see gay children getting into relationships? yes, so naturally the same would go for incest. Since it would be considered moral, and legal what would stop them? it isn't uncommon these days for teenagers to get pregnant, and it's been proven that this is a current problem. So my argument is, teens these days in normal relationships are having children they do not want while they're under 18. Why would incest relationships not have this same issue? You get what I mean, BY making incest marriage legal, it will be socially acceptable for this. As I said, let's look at gay marriage. It was highly condemned, and then guess what? Laws started to protect them, marriage became legal, and teens started dating. There is nothing wrong with this, as straight and gay couples cannot produce inbred children, and while obviously teen pregnancy is bad, there is no harm to the child, at least. I just don't see why you think if it was legalized, and socially accepted to date family members (who consented) that children would not catch on to this. And abortion is not always a option for families, some have religious beliefs, some can't afford it, and abortion always leaves scars. In the end, it will be a train wreck.
Incest is NOT Wrong

Hi! If you think I'm being disrespectful, tell me, as it isn't my intent. <3 I'm going to number my responses to match your numbers. 1. " Your argument rests on the fact that "kids" will not be born, therefore the harm factor is out." Actually, I explained that I'm talking about sexual relationships, not breeding, and thus inbreeding and children aren't relevant to the discussion let alone, "out" the harm factor. "All it takes is a slip up." Actually no, I don't see a realm where someone is using all the aforementioned alternatives and accidentally has a child. You haven't explained how it's possible. There are too many safeguards at all stages before and during pregnancy for a "slip up" to happen. 2. Change society with teenage pregnancies? How? This looks like the makings of a slippery slope fallacy. You haven't explained how legalizing incest marriage would actually cause this. No harm proven. Regarding your last two paragraphs: If your only arguments are regarding children, inbreeding, again, is a separate issue, and as it stands, you fail to demonstrate any harm outside of that. Surrogate pregnancy is safe and listed in my alternative list along with abortion (or plan B if you're not up for that). Nature has no say in what is okay and what isn't. Nature would have people get smallpox and die from the common could or other sicknesses. Humanity with our unnatural solutions in vaccines and medicine show that something being natural or unnatural isn't an indicator of whether it is benevolent or malevolent.