BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution: Unalienable Rights, trumps, "survival of the fittest"

Hello debatergorl (Con), and thank you for joining me (Pro) on an evolutionary journey on evolution. At least, I would like to think so, for the sake of those in the field of education inspiring future generations.Imagine, what the world would be like today, if that popular political fad of Social Darwinism during the turn of last century, was based on the phrase "survival of the happiest" instead of "survival of the fittest." Perhaps, the world today may be a happier place.Too bad, eighty some years after the US Declaration of Independence, Charles Darwin did not examine Thomas Jefferson's claim of Unalienable Rights being "self-evident" to all humans and not considering that it may apply to all life. What is human "Happiness?" Happiness is an emotion based on positive-feedback from an event. Survival is a prerequisite for an event, where survival is also a form of positive-feedback.We may generalize Thomas Jefferson's claim to all life, once alive, "Life" must have the freedom ("Liberty") "in the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a natural drive for all life, and the prerequisite for human "Happiness." It would seem, unbeknownst to Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, a primeval working function found throughout all living-systems. He claimed a polished version of this primeval function, within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights in the celebrated form of, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."Jefferson's objective was to sway opinion for independence and to upset His Royal Highness King George III with such a phrase, as it flew in the face of the prevailing political theory of the day. Also, Jefferson's term of Unalienable Rights became the foundation to the US Constitutional design of governance, which sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.From a Social Darwinism perspective, the notion of "survival of the fittest," is more inclined to conquest, where "survival of the happiest" promotes innovation.From a scientific standpoint, the examination of life's Unalienable Rights as an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, provides a traceability path to the physical Laws of Nature. This examination is a new evolutionary step in understanding evolution.http://www.amazon.com...http://www.amazon.com...
Evolution: Unalienable Rights, trumps, "survival of the fittest"

In this debate, Pro claims the Natural Selection Process and evolution, in general, is accurately portrayed by Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (Thomas Jefferson), compared to that celebrated phrase "survival of the fittest" (Herbert Spencer). In this debate, Pro takes Thomas, Con takes Herbert. Let's enjoy a mutual learning experience over a constructive debate.
High School Varsity Sports should be eliminated

I do not appreciate Con's lack of seriousness in this debate and would like to make my final statements. My opponent has not refuted any of my points, nor has he provided any support or examples for his arguments. He used no references to support his points, and only used vague statements to explain his reasoning. Also, my opponent started this biased argument and took the side of Con, which is inherently the side that is favored. I feel that taking up a challenge is a part of a good debater, so took this debate, hoping for a challenge, but what my opponent has set up is nothing more than a high school athlete, trying to be right about high school sports. As weak as this debate was, I tried my best to convince you, the voters, that my opponents arguments were poorly constructed and supported. I have shown that 1) not every varsity sport promotes teamwork and cooperation, 2) of those sports that do promote teamwork and cooperation, they do not do so at a higher level than travel teams. I have also shown that 3) although many sports athletes did participate in high school varsity sports, only a very small percent of varsity athletes make it into professional sports. This means that high school varsity sports do not help all athletes, and that only a very select few who have natural talent and work hard by training and practicing have a chance of making it into the professional sport of their liking. It is not based on whether or not they played varsity sport in high school. 4) Also, if high school sports were eliminated there would still be plenty of opportunities (such as travel teams and city teams) for students in high school to participate in the sport of their choosing, to help develop their skills for the collegiate level or professional levels. Therefore, varsity sports are not necessary to exist in a high school parameter. Thank you all for your time, and I hope that just because Con has set up what seems to be a trap, you will honor my efforts to make a good debate out of something that normally wouldn't be debated, even though the integrity of the website was checked by my opponent even creating this debate. I am new to this website and hope that it remains a place for intelligent people to discuss important and controversial topics, and not a place where debaters friends will blindly vote for their friends instead of the person who had better conduct and reasoning in his or her debates.
Should E- Books replace Text books

Should textbooks be replaced by e- textbooks? I believe that textbooks are a waste of paper, many students are careless with them, and so they damage the book by drawing on the pages or ripping them out. But when that happens it renders the learning abilities of other students, because they are running the book. But if we were given e- copies of textbooks students would not be able to ruin them and since this is the 21st century almost everyone has tablets, laptops, I Pads and even phones. That would save so much paper from having to cut trees meaning that there would be a higher chance to stop global warming. Also, these textbooks could be sold for funds for schools so they could buy more technology for their students, or maybe for outdoor utilities like basketball nets, balls, grass, etc. how is this cost effective? It is because most students have devices for pleasure to play games and to do work. So now we know that people already have it for themselves right, well see on most devices you can download e-books meaning that you could download a textbook if you had one. So, it would also be easily accessible anywhere. So, for example, if you were away from school you could learn the exact same things that your peers were learning just at home. That is why I believe that E-books should replace Textbooks
Child beauty pageants are a fun way for kids to build self confidece and meet friends

You'll notice that Pro has not even attempted to argue how or why that participating in these pageants is fun for young girls. On the contrary, I've pointed out how these pageants are literally a form of child abuse according to the definition provided by two federal government acts of legislation. Additionally, I've explained how these pageants actually cause harm and inflict emotional, mental and sometimes even physical damage amongst participants. Pro noted in the last round that winning makes a child feel beautiful or handsome. First, I don't know why Pro is mentioning "handsome" since one of the only things she said in a previous round was that she believes these pageants should be limited to girls only. Second, only ONE person out of all of the contestants can be the winner. That means that there are far greater chances and occurrences of losing than winning. Additionally, I doubt one person would win every time. I've detailed how the pressures of losing these contests costs a great deal of stress and other burdens that young children are inept to cope with at such a young age. Moreover, Pro hasn't proven that children even want to partake in these endeavors, let alone argue that people tend to make friends at these events. Meanwhile, I've noted how most of these relationships become competitive to the point where it's unhealthy. So, overall, Pro has nowhere near fulfilled her burden of affirming the resolution.
Child beauty pageants are a fun way for kids to build self confidece and meet friends

even though that pageants my not be fun on con's part but most little kids enjoy doing it for the love of the sport pageants also any kid good manners or how to show how to win or loose becuase some children grow up in a home that winning is the only thing that is acceptable in that house hold but when you get your child to loose it is okay to show that they had fun. you also don't need a lot of make up that is why they have natural pageants were they child goes on with just his/her face with a smile then they have glitz were they child looks like a little 20 year old but it's a fun why for for girls to be who they are if they are a true girly girl.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over next year.

The economic stimulus package is ineffective for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is simply not enough. 60,000 people lost their jobs in the last quarter. There have been millions of foreclosures in the last year. Tens of millions more have lost untold thousands in home equity. Many people now have negative equity in their home. That means that they owe more on the house than its worth, meaning they have no incentive to pay back the loan on their house and every incentive to let the bank foreclose on their house. At the point where people have lots tens of not hundreds of thousands of dollars in a life long investment, lost their jobs, or are simply made homeless, a couple hundred or even $1,200 dollars cannot come close to making up for that. The second reason it is ineffective is because the tax rebates will be ineffective is because it will not actually affect how people spend. The economist Milton Friedman argued (and won the Nobel prize in economics for) that people spend based on their expected future income. That means as long as people think the economy is weak and they could lose their job or house then it does not matter how much money is given back in tax rebates, they will always save it if they think that hard times are ahead. This as been empirically proven with the first Bush tax cuts where people tended to save the money rather than spend it. The final reason that the economic stimulus package will not be effective over the next year because it simply takes longer than that for economic policy to take affect. Most people wont be filing their tax returns until April and will only be getting their checks some months later. It will be about six months from now before anyone gets their rebate checks. Even if everyone spent all of their checks as soon as they got them, it would take months for businesses to turn that increase in profit into increased investment and increased jobs. The stimulus package is 1. not big enough 2. not the right type of package and 3. will not take affect within the next year.
Barbie has more positive than negative influences on children

1. In response to my opponents first and second arguments that Barbie gives young girls self image problems by giving an impossible standard of beauty and that this causes girls to be anorexic or feel inferior, I would like to point out that this is not exclusive to Barbie. This is a problem in society in general. If you look at any magazine cover you will see photoshopped models and celebrities that give unrealistic standards and ideals of beauty. We have to change society as a whole to solve these issues. 2. Also in response to my opponents first and second arguments, I would like to make the point that if we look to arguments about Barbie's image above arguments about her character then we are telling the world that how a person looks is more important than their actions and character. 3. In response to my opponents third argument I would like to make the point that Barbie actually is not only the stereotypical example of European beauty, their are Barbie dolls from many different ethnicities, including African American, Asian, Indian among many others. I will provide links to examples of these at the bottom of the debate.4. I would like to extend all of the arguments I made originally as my opponent has refuted none of them. http://m.barbiecollector.com...
Barbie has more positive than negative influences on children

I have nothing against Barbie. I am a straight 16 year old male who would still like to watch Barbie movies if given the chance. lol. But since i've got nothing to do here is my next argument. -Girls compare themselves to Barbie from a young age, which has a negative effect on the self-esteem of girls in a young age. (Approximately ages 4 to 9) They compare their actual body size to Barbie, seeing that Barbie is tall and skinny compared to them. Barbie affects girls" self-image most at a younger age. This causes them to focus on inadequacies they think they have, rather than on their strengths. -From as young as age 4 or 5, Barbie teaches girls to strive for the perfect body. However, hers is far from perfect"society only defines it as such. "In fact, if Barbie were a real person, her waist would be 39 percent smaller than an anorexic patient"s, say Dittmar and Halliwell in reference to an earlier study." (I'll provide a source link later) So when children at a young age can't live up to her standards, they make themselves anorexic in attempt to change their bodies. This is affecting their health. -Barbie also puts forth the idea that white skin, blond hair and blue eyes are the ideal standard of beauty. In our society, young girls and women of different ethnicities often feel they"re being judged according to a standard they can"t live up to. Rather than recognizing all the different types of beauty in the world, Barbie continues the myth that European beauty is the standard. -Sources: http://www.teenink.com... note: I say again, I have nothing against Barbie. I'm totally okay with her.
Barbie has more positive than negative influences on children

1. ) Barbie demonstrates loyalty to children, teaching them the benefit of this trait. In all of her movies, Barbie comes through to show that she will stand by her friends above all else. In Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper (2004), when the Barbie (the princess) and her new found friend (the pauper) stand up for each other against those that wish them harm, in order to triumph against adversity in the end.2. ) Barbie demonstrates preserverance. In Barbie: A Fashion Fairy Tale (2010), Barbie continues to work to save her aunt's fashion shop, despite every obstacle that is thrown her way. 3. ) Barbie is an example of an independent young woman. In Barbie and the Three Musketeers (2009), Barbie plays the part of one of the three musketeers, showing that women are strong and independent enough to stick up for themselves both intellectually and physically.4. ) Barbie demonstrates courage. In all of her movies, Barbie faces adversity to accomplish what she knows to be right. 5. ) Barbie demonstrates kindness to everyone. Even when people are not kind to her, Barbie does not return this with unkindness. She stands up for herself without being mean to others. All of these traits can help young girls to grow up to be kind, independent, loyal, perseverant young women, who can change the world for the better.
Barbie has more positive than negative influences on children

Barbie is the main protagonist of the Barbie series since her name is "Barbie". I like the series called "Barbie and the nutcracker". It really has an influence on children especially girls because these children have imaginations that can relate to Barbie (they like to crack nuts). Majority, Barbie is a princess from my observation. But she can also imitate the ways of a modern teenage american girl without having the spoiled brat attitude or bitchy sluttish kind of behavior. Barbie is fiction, but a child (this has to be a girl) can look up to her as a good role model.
Defeating ISIS with Violence is impossible.

Before we dig down to anything else, we must cover a few definitions: Defeating: to overcome, win against. ISIS: the Islamic State of greater Iraq and Syria. Violence: any behavior involving force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Impossible: not possible; unachievable. Responding to the Pro's case: 1) Pro said that 'ISIS operates by way of radical religion and ideology.' True. So what? 2) Two responses: a)The Pro has brought forth no examples of where this happened. b) They will not be able to attract much support as most Muslims do not support ISIS. In fact, almost all the top Muslim leaders speak out against it, such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Al-Azhar, the Nabil Al-Arabi, Mehmet Gormez, and countless other figures of Islam condemn it: http://www.beliefnet.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... http://www.washingtonsblog.com... The fact is, ISIS is simply acting under the name of Islam and will arouse little (if any) support. 3) True. So what? 4) Only by very stupid and rebellious muslims. (look at 2)) 5) Not true according to the above. (2,6) 6) We will not create a significant amount of new ISIS members. 7) True, it is not in our best interests, but it will not happen. 8) The resolution should be affirmed. Now for my own case. Contention 1: Only way. It's not like we can defeat ISIS with words or threats :-). We must use violence in this scenario. Violence, as harsh as it may sound, is the only way. Contention 2: Not impossible. Defeating ISIS is not as impossible as Pro makes it sound. For one: the resolution does not give a certain nation in question. Therefore, defeating ISIS as the UN would be under this resolution. For two: ISIS will not attract as much support as they hope they will/as Pro makes it out to be. ISIS has already lost it's appeal with almost all of the Muslim world. Today, I hope I've shown that the Pro is simply overestimating this, and is not counting on fact. It is for this reason, and the ones above, that I believe the Con warrants your vote. Thank you.
Defeating ISIS with Violence is impossible.

The resolution to be pro or con on is Resolved: Committing US ground combat troops is in the best interest of the United States. I have changed my formatting here though because instead of taking on every single argument at once, perhaps some people would simply like to take on a single argument. This will be for argument: [ A ]……if you want to debate this, please just tell me in the comment, Thanks! A. ) Argument on ideology 1. ) ISIS operates by way of radical religion and ideology. 2. ) Empirical evidence (history) shows that military violence will only draw more middle easterners to radicalism, as we are seen as the 'invaders and imperialist aggressors' who have come to destroy their way of life and replace it with capitalism and christianity. + the harder the violence the more support they gain. 3. ) The primary purpose of ground troops is to instigate violence against ISIS 4. ) This will be conveyed as an attack on all of the mulim world 5. ) When the US puts ground troops, radical islamic ideology will spread and create a massive flood of ISIS fighters whom the US will not be able to beat. 6. ) If we create more ISIS members, we proliferate the problem we try to solve 7. ) This is a negative in general and is NOT in the interest of the United States. 8. ) The resolution should not be affirmed. We have to fight terrorism by underpinning the ideology itself and making it lose its appeal. ISIS itself WANTS us to come in again and get involved with another conflict drawing more support to it. Rules, Rounds and Regulations1. ) R1: Opening argument/ resonse to opening argument2. ) R2: Responses/ rebuttals3. ) R3: Rebuttals/ rebuttals4. ) R4: Summary and Why you win5. ) BOP is on CON6. ) No arguments in support of the resolution, If con looses his argument then he automatically looses the entire round thus this argument is all that must be negated.
We need/It is beneficial to have: More logic and reasoning taught in schools worldwide!

"As a subject on its own, a waste of time and effort."I would come to disagree. Logic and reasoning are very useful to society and the individual as it improves manner of thinking. History teaches us that social injustices and crimes against humanity are not the product of a rational mind, but the product of ill thinking. Logic and reasoning besides being useful to the student is useful to society as a whole because it detracts from ill thinking as I had pointed out earlier."It's taught as an integrated part of all other subjects."I feel I have pointed out previously that this argument is insuffienct."There is simply no need for it."My opponent seems to be saying this over and over again, but that is it. My opponent is not arguing or making any attempt to rebuttall my previous arguments so I have nothing to offer here for them.This is the last round and I thank my opponent for deciding to debate with me here as I like to challenge myself and ideas.Thank you.
We need/It is beneficial to have: More logic and reasoning taught in schools worldwide!

I am sad to see that many false claims have been made in the pro's opening argument.It is clear that if reading skills, listening skills, prejudice, superstition, relativist thinking, distrust in reason, short-term thinking, selective perception, selective memory, unwarranted assumption, stereotyping and close/narrow-mindedness are all dependent on whether or not a person was raised in a school that taught logical reasoning as a subject, the entire human race would never have progressed to what it is today since this has never been an actual mainstream subject in itself in any standard school's syllabus. Yet, without having ever been taught this as a subject, it seems there are many of the human race who score well on all these factors and that is clear evidence against the teaching of logical reasoning being the basis of people's outlook on all these matters.The next false claim is that if one isn't taught logical reasoning in and of itself they cannot grasp languages, mathematics, global studies, science, health or art. Firstly, health and art are nothing to do with logical reasoning and rather with impulsive urge to be fit and to express emotion respectively. Science, language, the humanities and mathematics use logical reasoning within themselves and this is in fact supportive of the reason not to bother teaching logical reasoning as a separate subject since it is interwoven within the syllabuses of al these subjects already.Logic and reasoning are skills that are gained from day-today life of a child. It is already the basis of many subjects meaning that logic is already being indirectly taught through many subjects as it is.In conclusion, there is absolutely no sufficient reason to give up the allocated teaching time of lessons for other subjects in exchange for a lesson of logic in and of itself.