BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need/It is beneficial to have: More logic and reasoning taught in schools worldwide!

I appreciate con's acceptance!Why it is important and beneficial to have more logic and reasoning taught in schools-1. Removes and greatly weakens the barriers to logical thinking.*1Which are: lack of relevant background information poor reading skills poor listening skills prejudice superstition relativistic thinking distrust in reason short term thinking selective perception selective memory unwarranted assumptions stereotyping narrow-mindedness close-mindedness 2. Is useful and relevant to everyday life and other school subjects.Language Arts - Good logic and reasoning skills improves reading, writing, and literature analysis.Mathematics - Is an extension of logicGlobal studies - Logic and reasoning is very important when talking about world issues and analysing historyScience - Logic and reasoning deals with understanding why things are true and validity, so it comes without saying it is important for science education.Health - Helps support logical choices for ones health.Art - Art is best used logically then say for example, propaganda. Many aspects of art are logical as well, such as composing or coloring for a painting.3. Learning proper logic and reasoning is useful for the rest of a child's education and entire life.When you do not have understand logic and reasoning, your knowledge lacks understanding of truth. Logic and reasoning help you to have a basic understanding of truth and knowledge.When logic is something children are not being taught to understand, their knowledge is only something they have heard and they do not understand why it is true. Competent understanding of logic is valuable to a learning mind and helps in reaching a good understanding and observations that are valid and sound.-This is all why I would argue logic and reasoning is a worthwhile subject including in a raw state, where it is much more effective.http://www.ascd.org...http://www.amanet.org...http://dspace.iup.edu...*1-http://askville.amazon.com...
We need/It is beneficial to have: More logic and reasoning taught in schools worldwide!

Pro will be arguing We need/It is beneficial to have: More logic and reasoning taught in schools worldwide!Con will be arguing, We don't need/It is not beneficial to have: More logic and reasoning taught in schools worldwide!Logic and reasoning:"1a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning"Straight copy pasted from http://www.merriam-webster.com..."[...]refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid, and which are fallacious)[2][3] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense, is primarily studied in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms thatarguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[4] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[5]"Straight copy pasted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogicI feel those are adequate definitions.Who:K-12 kids would learnWhat:Logic and reasoningWhere:Worldwide, including poor countries and dictatorships will be forced to teach it.When:*Before it's too late!Why:Useful skills, critical thinking, and promote a smarter/better society.So you choose to debate here, the rules are:You must address me as The Pro, not Yuiru.No copy pasta arguments, you must cite sources used.General good conduct.
Teachers should have their students go to the restroom.

Interesting that you have a teacher that uses the restroom during class. I have never seen or met anyone who has had a teacher go in the middle of class. This case seems pretty atypical.As for drink choices, that is the students' fault. No one is making the students drink the sugary drinks, if they want to drink them, they need to accept any consequences. Even if high sugar content is causing a more frequent urge to pee, it is not permanent. High sugar content increases the urge partially as a result of the body trying to discard the excess sugar. Once a person stops consuming sugar and it has been used up by the body, urinary habits should go back to normal. The more frequent urination is just a side effect from the poor choices made by the students, choices that the teachers are not responsible for. When it comes to exercise, this is actually beneficial to the reduction of urination. When you exercise, you secrete fluids, such as through sweat, actually decreasing the need to urinate rather than increase it. With more than 55% of students partaking in some form of sport, the majority, as you said, the urination frequency shouldn't be above normal. Four minutes should be plenty of time to do your business and move on. It takes on average, 21 seconds to urinate. Even with a line, you should still be in and out fairly quick. Students should make it to class, provided they don't doddle in the hall, another choice made by students that teachers are not responsible for.Sources:http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Teachers should have their students go to the restroom.

It doesn't matter how long you hold it. What matters is how much is taken in. So you're somewhat correct. The more water someone drinks the more the have the urge to use the bathroom. Yes, you can use the bathroom on a schedule. But what if someone doesn't drink 8 cups of water like they usually do for the next two days? It messes up your schedule to go use the bathroom and you have a more of an urge to urine. Just because you didn't drink enough water the past two days. The average person urinates 8 - 10 times a day. That is the usual amount for those who drink 8 cups of water. 4 -7 is someone who drinks 5 or 6 cups of water each day. Also, teachers use the bathroom during class, especially in my school. Of course, their is a student teacher in training that has been teaching us for the past 49 days of this semester. I am not saying it isn't fair. But, if a teacher is allowed to use the restroom, the students should. The teacher leaving to go to the restroom isn't any different than the student going to the restroom. Also, many students, during school, don't usually drink water. When the snack bar is open, they go to buy a soda, Gatorade, propel, Hawaiin punch, etc. Sugary drinks lead to excessive urination. Which is the majority of students needing to use the bathroom. With sugar, effects of holding the urine in are much more dangerous than water. Forget about holding it in for hours. That isn't even part of the issue. Once again, majority of students tend to be walking around, playing football, etc, which is essentially working out the body that also leads to excessive urination. Yeah, and about the 5 - 7 breaks try going to the bathroom in under 4 minutes with 10 kids already on the urinals and half of them in the stalls. There's no way someone will make it on time in class in 4 minutes when they have a full bladder. Sources: http://www.livestrong.com...
Teachers should have their students go to the restroom.

Hello, Pro. Interesting topic you have chosen. This is definitely a common occurrence in schools, and I'm here to debate the other side. Let's jump right in. Firstly, I will acknowledge that holding urine for extended periods of time can, in fact, cause complications such as harmful bacterial growth. This, however, is not going to happen during the course of a class. The average person can generally go from 4-5 hours before needing to pee. The high school I attended had 50 minute and 90 minute periods, well within the safe time. With entire school days usually not surpassing 8 hours, this provides 5-7 opportunities for students to use the restroom. This leads me to my next point, My research found that the average person urinates 4-7 times a day as opposed to 8-10. I am a healthy person, and personally, I usually urinate 4 times a day leading me to believe this is fairly accurate. With 5-7 class breaks, students should be able to fulfill their urinary needs. Similarly, you can also train yourself to pee on a schedule. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a source, but I remember in school we read the stories of Holocaust survivors. A common element they shared was that they always seemed to pee at the same time everyday. The officers would only allow them to use the bathroom at specific times, meaning they had to hold it until one of those times arrived. Years of doing that trained their bodies to the point where they have the urge to urinate at those exact times to this day. In a much less extreme case, going to school with consistently scheduled breaks can have a similar result on students. Spend enough days going at the same schedule, and they should be able to train themselves when to go. Sources: http://www.vox.com... http://healthguides.healthgrades.com...
Teachers should have their students go to the restroom.

"Mrs. Yates? Can I go to the restroom? It's an emergency!" "No. You have like 5 minutes to get to class, you could've went to the restroom". "5 minutes isn't enough". "Yes it is!" Most students have dealt with this at least once every day in school. Drank too much water and KABLAM! They need to go down to Bathroom Lane, asap. But that isn't an option. Teachers won't allow students to go because either they had "5 minutes before class" or "you can hold it". Which isn't a good thing to do. Little do teachers know, holding in urine or waste is not good at all. An average bladder can hold about 15 ounces of liquid. Which is eight glasses of water which, is 64 ounces). Holding in your urine for a long periods of time can stretch your bladder. The automatic feedback mechanism in the bladder sends a signal to the brain when it's full, giving the signal that it's time to use the bathroom. NOW. Resisting the urge to pee, could have your body lose the ability to know when it's time to go. "The longer you hold your urine, the bladder can become a breeding ground for bacteria to grow," Dr. Bali says. This bacteria can lead to infections, which can spread to kidneys and cause greater damage to the body. School teachers and crane operators are two professions who disagree with allowing students to use the restroom which is not in any way the right thing to do. Bacteria can de deadly and dangerous. If a child needs to go, then they need to go. Simple as that. Norma urination is 8 to 10 times a day. If you aren't using the restroom 8 to 10 times a day, something isn't right. It might be you're not hydrating yourself enough. But still, bacteria is the last thing that any student would want to have just for holding in urine. It's a heck of pain to go through and no one would want to go through it. But teachers will never understand.
Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

Crossfire 2: 1. "The Nazi was machine manifested out of a vehement leader and a country in peril." It still was very powerful, wasn't it? 2. If people still starved in West Berlin, why did the Soviet Union think it best to lift the blockade? 3. Ha ha, since you yourself said that democracies begin with corrupt leaders, how would democracy fix "economic imperialism"? And what guarantee do you have that a democracy would promote local business while other forms of government would promote foreign business? 4. Are you're saying that since Palestine is the only country attacking Israel, we don't have to worry about Israel? 5. Are you aware that Israel is negotiating with its neighbors? That should reduce the hostility. 6. Even if WWII was not originally meant to set up a democratic government, it was military intervention, correct? 7. We had to maintain supervision over Germany and Japan after WWII, correct? Thus, the failure for more Hitlers and Tojos to rise was due to our supervision and not democracy in Germany and Japan, correct? 8. Our democratic allies are from WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, correct? Thus, are we allies with these countries because they're democratic or because we happened to be on their side in a war? 9. What evidence do you have that hostilities between democratic and non-democratic nations are higher than hostilities between democratic nations? 10. Keeping out communism involves the same goals as democracy promotion, correct? 11. "What? We're sucking the US dry and depending on the middle east!" What exactly do you mean by this? 12. Based on your conclusions, my sources are in question, so your sources are in question, correct?
Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

I had no questions to ask. ------- Refutations: 1. The Nazi was machine manifested out of a vehement leader and a country in peril. 2. There is only so much food a plane can bring. People starved as its government was too corrupt and inefficient to provide for its own people, my point proven. 3. Haha, it's called economic imperialism. Where foreign businesses roll into an impoverished nation, pay off its corrupt leaders, then create businesses that suck the country of its resources and labor. The money is shipped back to foreign countries. If a democracy was in place the people would write laws that promote local business. 4. There are two flaws in your argument. The first is that Palestine is the only country attacking Israel. The U.S. Doesnt have troops in Palestine. Second, if your argument were true, what would you propose we do about the hostility? More military action? Moving people out of Israel? All the possibilities are not feasible. 5. The goal of WWII was not to set up a democratic government. The goal was to stop Germany from taking over our European allies and stop Japan from taking over America (plus Pearl Harbor). Setting up a democratic government in these countries was a bonus effect of the war. Let's use these countries as an example. What happened after we set up a democratic government? No more Hitlers and Tojos. 6. Hostilities between democratic and non democratic nations are much higher than two democratic nations. The US is currently allied with the majority of democratic nations in the world, therefore if we create more countries that are democratic we will have more allies. 7. The vietnam war was not promoting democracy, it was stopping the spread of communism. It's the same case for the Korean war and the Chinese Civil war, the US's goal was to stop communism, even if it meant keeping a corrupt dictator in power. Jiang Jieshi (Chinese Nationalist Dictator) was the corrupt "elected" president of "free" china who was supported by the US. The case is the same with Vietnam and South Korea. 8. "We can always turn to the oilfields in the US..." What? We're sucking the US dry and depending on the middle east! --------- Conclusion: 1. My opponent's arguments are refuted. 2. My opponent's refutations are refuted. 3. My opponent's sources are still in question. 4. My arguments stand I urge a pro vote.
Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

Crossfire: 1. Germany was certainly NOT a word power before WWII. Germany was coming out of a terrible economic depression, Japan was also just becoming economically stable by expanding its territories. After such a vehement leader as Hitler, and the demi-god emperor Tojo, it is almost suprising that democracy ever developed in these countries. In addition, the resolution does not limit this debate to modern conflicts. 2. Sorry here are my sources.ï¿½http://www.ncjrs.gov...;(Yes West Berlin starved until the soviets lessened the blockade.) 3. Exactly. Many poor countries were colonized in the past and forced to slave or near-slave labor. Modern day imperialism is a direct result of economic spheres of influence. These influences are a direct result of corrupt leaders/ corporations. In a democratic society corrupt leaders are voted out and corporations have limited power, thereafter limiting foreign influence in the country. 4. Can you expand on that point and relate it to the argument? 5. Sometimes setting up a democracy involves military intervention, the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. But sometimes not, Germany, Japan. 6. Wars that would be started by non-democratic, hostile countries. As a side note I would like to point out that my opponents sources are neither relevant OR cited in his argument. A bit odd coming from someone who demands sources :P
Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

Final focus is where we try to convince the voters that our side wins by summing up our arguments and saying how they outweigh our opponents'. Rebuttals can be given in crossfire or second speech. -------- Crossfire starts now: 1. Germany and Japan were world powers before WWII, so it's no suprise that they would be fine after recieving US financial aid. Vietnam was quite poor, and we failed to set up a successful democracy there. The nations in the Middle East are more like Vietnam than they are like Germany and Japan, so how can you guarantee that the nations in the Middle East would also be able to have successful democracies? 2. Germany and Japan's democracies were really weak and corrupt in the beginning? Which of your sources says that? 3. When the US promotes democracy, does that necessarily mean they are promoting a better economy? The majority of low income nations have also been imperialized in the past, and are thus impoverished. Most democracies have been spared from imperialism and some have been imperial powers. 4. Which country do most terrorist groups target: the US or Israel? Therefore, would it be better to promote democracy in 23 different countries and keep the animosity between Israel and its neighbors, or would it be better to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and its neighbors? 5. Can human rights violations be resolved with just military intervention, or do we have to set up a successful democracy? 6. What future wars are you referring to? Sources: [1] http://www.mideastweb.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)
Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

Crossfire: 2B 1. Military? Yes. Economy? No. 2. This question is a red herring. The Soviet Union lifted the blockade because of pressure from foreign nations and because they felt it was the right thing to do. (PR). 3. I concede that in the beginning a democracy would be corrupt, but as it improves it would start to behave in a way to benefit the people. It's common sense that a government run by the people will look out for the people. 4. No, by the way voters that one is called "Putting words in my mouth". 5. http://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com... 6. Intervention means intervene, were we intervening in anything when we retaliated after Pearl Harbor? No. Setting up democracy wasnt even on the agenda until a few months before the A-Bombs. 7. US supervision of the governments of the countries was only for a few years (although military presence continues to this day). Hitlers would have rebelled against the democracy in place. But they didnt. Case closed. 8. Both. We were not exactly allied with Non-Democratic nations during/after WWI and WWII. 9. Same government usually means same ideals. Ergo more smooth diplomacy. 10. As I said last round (but you completely ignored) it doesnt necessarily. With the Chinese civil war we supported a corrupt dictator. 11. Do you think we are not using the US oil fields? You are uninformed. We use so much oil that the US fields alone wont supply the country, creating a demand from the middle east. 12. What the heck does that mean? --------- Conclusion: 1. My opponent has drawn a red herring in argument 2. 2. My opponent ignored my point from argument 10. 3. My opponent does not know that there is oil in the US being used. 4. My opponent "dodged" my questions on his sources. They are still in question: (referring to round 1) 1. Links toï¿½npr home page. No info. 2. References an arbitrary fact that is not cited. No info. 3. Irrelevant. 4. Planet debate? What? 5. Past debates. What? 5. My points stand untouched. 6. My opponent's points are all down. I uge a pro vote.
A Missile Defense System

"Okay. In Thanksgiving of 2003, president BUsh made a secret trip to the Middle East, that the pres nor the public never knew about till after we got there. He is the most followed man in the world. There are tons of press surcurity etc following him. That blue plane that's impossible to miss and yet he made it out unnoticed. The government will make it secret, and we'll never find out." It's much easier to lose track of one man than it is to cover up a multinational US government project. This is not so much the focus of the American media as it is our enemies. They have kept track of the US missile defense program since it started. "If I understand this right, you agree with me. I'm not sure my reasoning is right, but to me it sounds like you are agreeing with me that a missile defense system would keep us safe. There is no reason not to take a risk on our safety and not complete the mission." The building of missile defense would take a long number of years, let's say 20. In that time span, the progress of the project will be well known. Either America's enemies quickly put all of their resources into missile making so that America is attacked before it can defend itself, or countries such as Iran focus additional funding on grassroots terrorism, i.e. Handheld nuclear detonation. "Okay now to the money part. I understand that 300 million citizens wouldn't be paying taxes. Now I will redo my numbers. 130,000,000 (million) people pay taxes. IT cost 10,000,000,000 annually to fund the system. That comes out to the citizens paying $76.93 to fund the system. Now I'm sure we could get corporate donations personal etc. That alone, exspecialy making a well marketed foundation could bring in 1/4 billion to 3/4 billion dollars." Regardless of hwo much exactly, it's the opportunity cost. The budget is tight enough, expanding it by almost another trillion would ruin our economy and depreciate the dollar even more. Instead, not allocate as much funding, and use it on projects such as domestic security and alternative energy. The main premise of the Con debate is that: 1) Missile attacks are NOT a threat 2) Missile defense spending can be better used elsewhere 3) Counter-intelligence and an active approach to security can prevent missile projects from existing