BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschooling is better than public school.

To voters, I understand this is an easy defeat of a new person. Still, I was challenged to this debate, so I feel obliged to reply.BOP is shared. Since it;s only half an hour for each round, let's get started.Arguments for public schooling:SocialisationWhile not easily quantifiable, social skills, communicative skills and the like are invaluable to a student, and ought to be the a part of an education. It's not that it's impossible to garner these skills in part at home, but public school forces a degree of socialisation. By mandating socialisation public schools prevent isolation, which can be detrimental. Also, going to a public school gives a common ground for discussions with others - you attend the same school, have the same memories etc. This builds stronger foundations for friendships, as well as giving you a better chance with connections. You can talk more easily when you have commond ground, and part of this common ground is public schooling.Teaching and specialisationAt school you have certified, professional teachers. Now, I'm not saying that they are perfect, but at the very least they can teach better than a busy adult. That's right - those who homeschool their children are giving up potentially productive working time, and failing to contribute to the economy. Want a slightly better economy? Vote public schooling over homeschooling.But back to professional. Schools enforce a standard of learning through measures such as exams. They make you learn crucial fundamental skills. Now, I'm not about to make the case that these are all critical. They are not. However, at times we need control exerted over children in order to get them to do things. Freedom is a good thing, can be great for a child, yet sometimes we need a more forceful, authoritative style. Public schooling achieves this mix in teaching style better than homeschooling, with homeschooling tending more to one extreme or the other.Multiculturalism and diversityIn a home setting you've got a very monocultural environment. You aren't exposed to other ways and views. This isn't to say that there is necessarily a gigantic gap between cultures, but it's important to be exposed to other ways nonetheless.For instance, my school has a non english speaking background of approximately 70% . That promotes diveristy and acceptance of other cultures; you can't very well adopt acceptance of only your own culture, lest you be barely a minority.ConclusionI know the above arguments don't hold a candle to a proper debate. The above is 15 minutes completely off the top of my head with no preparation. Nevertheless, let's see what Pro does...
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

Do you even know what the neo nazi propaganda is? They are out on hunting jews. If you protect them, you're no better then them or us and you will be seen as a racist. "No Pro I won't happily listen to them nor will I obey, you see that's the point, the PERSON decides what they will gladly hear of their OWN choice, not because a government or authority determines what things are allowed to be heard and not heard." Theres a reason why racism isnt allowed. If you were to let the nazis make their speech on tv, everyone will feel attacked. Now you're trying to defend them even after they make racistic comments about us. "As I said before this is logically fallacious. All pro has done is taken two things and says one causes the other. Consider this the sun exists, the kkk exists, therefore the sun causes the KKK." What you're pointing and what im proving are 2 different things. As I said before, you're a now protecting racism because you apply freedom of speech on nazis. Racistic propaganda published = hate speech = outside law. You cannot deny that racism isnt a crime and that it isnt a hate speech. You deserve to be inflicted with personal attacks if you keep saying racism has freedom of speech. I mean, look at what the NSDAP has caused on Jews. The same thing is happening now again in the world because of the economic crisis, they all are seeking a scapegoat. If we forbade those parties, we will never have to face such things anymore. I just dk anymore... just vote for who you want to... And my opponent, dont you even dare to vote for yourself.
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

Part of Pros argument is, unless you agree with Pro that Nazi's should not have their speech protected under free speech you are a nazi and or racist. Its sad that Pro has to resort to such tactics, but since they can't defend their position they have no choice but to resort to personal attacks. So in conclusion lets all agree with Pro, lest Pro starts calling us racists and nazi's. Pro asks "So, if its the neo nazis turn to make their speech, you will happily listen to them and obey what they said? No Pro I won't happily listen to them nor will I obey, you see that's the point, the PERSON decides what they will gladly hear of their OWN choice, not because a government or authority determines what things are allowed to be heard and not heard. Understand the difference Pro ? People get to decide what they will hear and not hear, NOT the government making that choice on their behalf. Pro says "The reason in the first place that the KKK grew so big was that they were protected with the law Freedom of speech. Bigger groups dares more then a small group, and you cant deny that. " As I said before this is logically fallacious. All pro has done is taken two things and says one causes the other. Consider this the sun exists, the kkk exists, therefore the sun causes the KKK. So Pro since you like to demand sources, what source were you referring to that says that free speech is the cause of the KKK ? is it the encyclopedia of things I just pulled out of my butt ? Now Pro likes to make this claim that free speech is the cause of the KKK and Nazism, ok how many of the voters will read about the KKK and their idea's, then go out and kill jews ? What you mean none of you will ? But Pro claims that free speech on such matters causes the killing of jews. Maybe Pro is just full of crap. Pro has not being able to present much of an argument for their side, thus all the personal attacks. Pro argument comes down to Neo nazi is bad thus we should censor their free speech. I already conceded that Neo nazim is bad, what Pro doesn't get is that some people don't want the government playing big brother determining what we can and can't hear, what idea's we can and can't express. Yes people, you might have to do the grown up thing, and decide for yourself what you will hear and won't hear, and not outsource this job to the government saying, oh please mr government I am just a child, so please filter what I can and can't hear, cause I am too stupid to decide for myself.
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

Pro says "And of course Con misses the point of my example of KKK. The reason in the first place that the KKK grew so big was that they were protected with the law Freedom of speech. " This is just logically fallacious, maybe the reason the KKK grew so big, was because people agreed with their idea's of racism ? and were able to use fear. If your blaming free speech for the rise of the KKK do you also credit free speech for the fall of the KKK ? Pro makes claims of what is and what isn't hate speech. And you see that's the problem, who determines what is and what isn't hate speech ? Consider this quote from Christopher Hitchens on defending free speech. "Every time you violate – or propose the violate – the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia you're making a rod for your own back. Because (…), to who do you reward the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom you're going to award the task of being the censor? " Just claiming that some types of hate speech are ok but some are not determined by some made up rules is still censorship. Consider this quote from Christopher Hitchens on defending free speech. "Is there anyone you find eloquent enough to decide for you what you could read? You would give the job to decide for you? To relieve you from the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Does anyone have a nominee? Hands up? You mean there is no one who is good enough to decide what I can read? I had no idea. . But there's a law – or some pebbling sub section of a law – that says there much be such a person. Well to hell with that law. It is inviting you to be liars and hypocrites and to deny what you evidently already know already. " Pro or anyone else wanting to determine what can and can't be said, they are just not taking away the right of the person to say it, but your and my right to hear it. Consider once again Christopher Hitches referring to other people who have defended free speech. "What they say is it's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. " Yes I understand Pro has good motives for wanting too censor some type of speech, buts that's the thing with all who advocate censorship, they all have good motives, but so what ? The way to hell is paved with good intentions. Pro says "Or they could be planning to revert the country to totalitarianism where we citizens have no freedom. Spreading such idea is hate speech and should be forbidden" The one who seeks to justify censoring free speech in the name of fighting totalitarianism. .. .. .. .. .. .oh the irony. I look forward to Pros response.
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

Just noticed that there was 5 rounds... Thanks for respond Con. Let me define hate speech. Everything that can be considered as insult is hate speech. If i were to say that you're so dumb because you are getting 1s for nearly half the year, then its not a hate speech. I've proven the point for that and its not an insult. If i were to say that you are a r*tard and that you should die, then its hate speech. See the difference? You can show me all those sentences, but it depends on what has happened truly. What you think over others makes no difference. It all depends on what they said and whats true. For example if you said something bad about Muhammad that was really true and you hate it, then its not hate speech. If you believe that the world is 6000 years old and the people calls you stupid, then its not hate speech either. But if they were to say that the Jews are Untermenschen and that they should be eliminated, then its hate speech as basically, theres no proof that the definition Untermensch really exist, its just an idea. Hate speech has its own definition, the examples you brought is just an example of failure to understand Hate speech. And of course Con misses the point of my example of KKK. The reason in the first place that the KKK grew so big was that they were protected with the law Freedom of speech. Bigger groups dares more then a small group, and you cant deny that. And with more the a million members, killings of black would happen nearly every night. Should they be struck down by Hate speech, the group will be disbanded soon. I never said that the law should be changed, its just that the problem is, why are neo nazism still allowed even if its Hate speech. Hate speech is as we see outside the law. And not only should we be censoring them, the fact that they exists mean that they soon will cause crimes against their targets like Jews. Back to the term Neo nazism. As we all know, the Nazi propaganda is very very bad. They could be planning to revive the old ideas of nazism by eliminating all untermenschen. Or they could be planning to revert the country to totalitarianism where we citizens have no freedom. Spreading such idea is hate speech and should be forbidden. If you dont agree with me fine, but if you were to stop me after blindly following the false idea of freedom of speech because you refuse to accept the definition hate speech, then i might as well call you stupid. I look forward to your answer, because i might as well call you a racist now. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

I missed the bit about their being an introduction round. Pro makes the point about "hate speech". Hate speech law in practice is nothing more than censorship. Hate speech protection can be given to anyone or any group. This creates an incentive for groups to use government power to protect their own. Your a catholic and don't like jokes about the popes funny hat ? well classify it as hate speech. Your a fundi christian and don't like people calling you stupid for believing the world is 6000 years old ? well classify it as hate speech. Your a vegetarian and don't like people calling you a vegie lover ? , well classify it as hate speech. Your a homosexual and don't like being called a butt pirate ? well classify it as hate speech. Your an atheist and don't like being told your going to hell ? well classify it as hate speech. Your a muslim and don't like anything bad said about Muhammad ? well classify it has hate speech Your a pedophile and don't like being regarded as the scum of society ? well classify it as hate speech. Don't like people mocking your Gods existence ? well classify it as blasphemy laws. .. .. .I mean hate speech. Like I said, once hate speech is established, other groups will seek to put themselves under the hate speech protection umbrella. Pro says "However, if we do protect those people, there will be racistic killings because they are full of themselves because of that protection. " Pro confuses the expression of an idea, with the act of that idea. For instance the KKK are only protected to free speech, they are not protected to go around killing people. People can express idea's that are contrary to the law, if they weren't allowed to do so, then the law would never change. Every law that is overturned for instance like slavery, was cause some one expressed an idea that the law was wrong in the first place. You can't pick and choose which idea's against the law can or can't be expressed. If a law is protected from criticism then that law will never change cause it can never have its negation advocated for. Pro has to justify why Neo Nazi's should be forbidden, not just argue that some of their speech should be censored. Neo Nazi's could still advocate alot of aspects of Nazism even if the law censored some of their speech. I look forward to Pros response.
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

I told you this was an introduction round, it seems you just ignored my point and decided to post it anyway. Anyway, good luck then Con. My opponent has 1 point to why neo nazism should not be forbidden. His point is that they have the same rights and so they have freedom of speech. But this is where it falls apart. Lets say for example I spread this idea that the Jews are the cause of the end of the world and that they all should be eliminated, thats a thing that freedom of speech doesnt apply to (not to mention that it basically makes no sense how they could pin it on jews so easily). Neo nazism ideas are based on eliminating all people that they see as below average human.(Untermensch) If their speeches contains hate towards another individual group, then they no longer have the protection of freedom of speech and it will be considered "Hate speech". However, if we do protect those people, there will be racistic killings because they are full of themselves because of that protection. Lets take the Ku Klux Klan as example. They all believed in white supremacy and they killed black people because they think what they do was right. I ask you people what you prefer: Protect them under the freedom of speech disguise and let them slaughter people that they wanted to get rid off or ban them by pointing out Hate speech so that no more such killings will be done and that we all will live in a happy society. Gives back spotlight to Con* Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Groups that supports neo nazism should be forbidden

I find the claims of Nazism morally abhorrent. So you would think I would argue for the other side of this debate. But you see the question isn't whether we agree with Nazism or not, the question is, should we allow people free speech or not, including advocates for nazism. Too forbid neo nazism is to take away their free speech that allows them to argue for nazism in the first place. The question of free speech is not whether it should be allowed just to people that you or the government of the day find acceptable, or even tolerable. The real test of whether free speech exists or not is whether a tiny minority are allowed to say what they want to say even if everyone else finds them morally abhorrent. If a society allows censorship of free speech, then rather than try and argue for your views in a free marketplace of idea's, the name of the game becomes using government power to suppress those who disagree with you. In a society where free speech is allowed, there is no incentive to try and use government power for censorship since it won't be allowed. The price we pay for free speech includes allowing Nazi's to say what they want to say, and as such they should not be forbidden. I look forward to Pros response.
Marx's Labour Theory of Value is Superior to Subjective Value Theory

My argument in this debate will be that Marx's labour theory of value, as outlined in Capital and elsewhere, is the only valid theory of value, and in particular that it is superior to the theories currently being touted by contemporary advocates (Mises institute, LearnLiberty etc) of the subjective value theory proposed by the Austrian school. This will not be a debate about socialism vs free market capitalism or libertarianism, although some limited discussion of the political ramifications of different value theories will be permitted. My opponent will need to argue that, contrary to my position, subjective value theory is a superior critico-economic tool, and that Marx's value theory can be proved invalid. Quick definitions Marx's Labour Theory of Value: The theory outlined by Marx which states that value (underlying value and to a certain degree price) is accounted for by 'socially necessary labour time', that is, the average amount of 'labour time' it takes, on average and under average conditions, to produce a given commodity. This theory holds that all new value is produced by labour, and that profits (surplus) derive from value produced by labour that is not payed directly back to the labourer in the form of wages (this inequality between value produced and wages is Marxian exploitation) Subjective Value Theory: a set of theories which aim to demonstrate that there are no objective standards of value, and that all value (prices) arise from the subjective attitudes towards the product of the consumer and the producer - the consumer either would or would not prefer to part with x money for y commodity, and the seller either would or would not prefer the consumer's money to keeping his product. This is associated with the supply and demand theory of price and the concept of 'marginal utility', which holds that the value of a commodity is the price a person is willing to pay for the next or 'marginal' item (a lot for my next diamond, very little for my next glass of water and so on)
Children's rights and their obligations should be respected.

Hi, this is my first debate so I would probably be bad at it so please have pacience with me. Children's rights and obligations should be respected because like the human rights say we are all equal. children should not be hit by their parents (for example) or harmed in any other way, since children are the future of our world. Children would be the future Prime Ministers, Presidents, Kings, Queens... And if children learn to treat others bad,fight and be bad leaders the world as we know it now would be completely destroyed. Thanks.
Children's rights and their obligations should be respected.

Thank you. Pro stated that "We are all equal", When quite obviously we are not. Children and adults have inherent differences as stated in my first argument. "It does not matter if kids have less brain capacity". Yes, it does. It does because brain ability has a great deal of affect on the daily life of EVERYONE. Pro states that anyone should be able to do anything. Should murderers murder? Of course not. "Would you like a world in which only women or men could work and study? ,"Pro used a false analogy. Children to adults is not the same as men to women. Children and adults do not have the same capacity for making judgements, while men and women mostly do. I agree that the rights of life should not be blatantly violated. However, liberty and property should be limited. When a person cannot be trusted to make free decisions that does not harm others or themselves, it is right to limit them. My opponent has failed to rebut my arguments. I extend all other arguements.
Children's rights and their obligations should be respected.

Ok, first of all I am a KID. I really feel offended for what you said, plus you are contradicting the HUMAN RIGHTS. We are all equal, ALL means everybody, so it does not matter if kids have less brain capacity or are not as responsible as adults but we all have the same rights and that is fair; would you like a world in which only women or men could work and study? I think that does not really sound fair, does it? Well rights were made to make a fair world and no matter your age, how you look or how you are we all are equal and have the same rights.
Children's rights and their obligations should be respected.

Hi, this is my first debate as well :)Accepted, and good luck to my opponent.I would like to state the terms under which I will debate: 1. "Children" shall be defined as a minors between the age of 0 and 18.2. "Rights and... obligations" shall be defined as the set of all rights and duties that an adult holds.3. "Respected" shall be defined as not infringed, protected.I will be arguing for "children should not have the full rights that an adult has". BoP shared.In the first round, I will outline my main arguments (not limited to these).I. Minors' brains are not fully developed.II. Minors are significantly more apt make decisions that are detrimental to themselves and society.III. Minors are generally not capable of performing the same tasks that an adult can.IV. Disciplined minors make better humans.Therefore a minor's rights and duties should be limited.Since my opponent has not made any extensive arguments in the first round, I will stop here and turn the debate over to Pro.Thanks!
The world isn't so bad.

Racism doesn't only occur in "small communities." It's exacerbated by the federal government that's supposed to guarantee equality." The leader of the free world said that Mexicans "are rapists." Furthermore, look at the incidents of police brutality in the past few years and the racial discrimination in our justice system. Brock Turner ( a convicted rapist) WAS RELEASED AFTER ONLY 3 MONTHS. Meanwhile, African Americans such as Michael Brown are being shot in the streets. Also, what do you "we have ways to stop the homeless from being homeless" HALF THE WORLD LIVES UNDER POVERTY. HALF. Furthermore, having ways for people to entertain themselves and willing your money to you kids doesn't make the world "morally good." That's just the advancement of the elite and the ignoring of the poor. You want examples of evil in this world? 20.9 million people are victims of human trafficking. The top 1% has 50% of the world's wealth. In some countries, victims of rape have to marry their rapists.