BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools.

Once again, I am proposing a solution to the education problem that involves a system different from the current way of doing things. Yes, I am saying the government should stop regulating the field of education. This is not likely, I will admit, but it is the solution that would work the best. I hope you do not seriously think that a video arcade would be getting any money at all under this system. The entire POINT to privatizing a market is to allow the competitive nature of capitalism improve its overall quality. That is the reason there would not have to be some imposed method of government standards on schools; the market would by itself eliminate any substandard school. It may be easy to set up a video arcade that qualifies to receive vouchers, but how easy is to convince parents to send their child there for an education? The invisible hand works wonders when left to its own devices. To suggest the First Amendment does not apply to the states is laughable. ALL Amendments apply to the states! The Constitution is the highest forum of law in the land. Article VI specifically states that even state judges must comply with the Constitution. The issue I take with public schools is not so much the fact they are funded by taxpayer dollars, but the fact that they currently monopolize the market on education. A voucher system completely eliminates the monopoly on education, as should be done, but also makes it easier for families to gain access to a good education for their child. I will concede that it is possible for most families to obtain an education for their child without any sort of government funding. However, it is also true that repeated elections, on both state and local levels demonstrate that people are willing to submit to some measure of taxation in order to ensure some measure of education for all. So if the people willing accept a system that saves tax dollars, promotes competition and freedom of choice, and does not violate the Constitution, where is the problem?
Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools.

Regarding the Supreme Court decision; I am arguing in favor of a system other than the current one, and therefore saying that the court ruling in question is mistaken. In the scenario I am presenting the government is simply not given the means by which to impose regulation on schools that are to receive money. Parents choose where the education money is to be sent, and it is sent there. The only scrutiny needed would be to keep people from stealing the voucher money, but that is hardly the same as government decrees on how a school is run. My proposal removes the government's power to say where education money is spent, making restraint a non issue. My point in bringing up the First Amendment was to illustrate why your questioning religious schools was flawed, but I seem to have misunderstood your approach. You are saying that religious institutions are barred under state law from receiving funds. However, there are problems with those laws. If a family were denied their entitled voucher dollars based on the religious status of a school, it means a state law has imposed a religious decision on that family, making the law unconstitutional. This argument also says nothing of voucher systems in other states or countries, where said laws do not exist. I agree that a fully privatized school system is the least complex system, and a very good overall approach to education. However, it cannot be argued that there are great benefits gained by having as many people educated as possible, and by providing an education to all citizens it ensures that any citizen who wants an education can get one. Since every citizen of a country benefits from a more educated populace, it is not unreasonable to suggest that all citizens should pay for the cost of having one. As I said previously, the Dutch have implemented a system much like the one I am suggesting, with resounding success. This system provides the universal access of public schools, while preserving the de-regulated, competitive state of privatized education. In short, it's a win-win.
Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools.

You say: "To begin with, there is no reason why private schools would have meet government requirements to receive funding." It is laughable to suggest that the government would not impose some sort of standard on the schools that receive its funding via vouchers. Right now it does impose regulations on "private" colleges who accept federal financial aid. Effectively, there are only two private universities in the country today -- Hillsdale College and Grove City College -- because they're the only ones that refuse all federal funding. Why do they refuse it? Not because they don't want the money... But because they don't want the government to regulate and CONTROL them. I will reiterate: The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 (Grove City College v. Bell) that any college or university with even one student receiving government money is thereby subject to government regulation. Do you trust the government to not exercise this power when it comes to K-12? When has the government ever NOT regulated something that it had the authority to do so? It's absurd to suggest they wouldn't impose standards on the schools receiving vouchers when you can see the example of financial aid and "private" colleges, which they DO regulate and control. Where did I say that vouchers violated the First Amendment? I specifically said they DIDN'T. Why are you raising the issue as if to suggest I said something I didn't? Federal vouchers are, however, in violation of the Tenth Amendment! The arguments you make for freedom, choice, etc., are undermined by vouchers because I have clearly demonstrated that the government will regulate private schools if they receive public money. You have to believe that the government will exercise restraint -- that's absolutely hilarious to suggest. And if vouchers are established on a state-by-state basis, then what of the many state constitutions specifically banning state money going to religious institutions? I conceded that public education is horrible and cannot be fixed. Although you "mean well," you are arguing for the abolition of private schools; the complete socialization of education. Your task in this debate is not to demonstrate how public schools have failed and are destined to fail -- I concede that. Your task is to answer this: How are vouchers preferable to what I am suggesting: Abolition of public schools altogether and the complete privatization of education? Vouchers would destroy private schools just as government funding has destroyed public ones.
Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools.

To begin with, there is no reason why private schools would have meet government requirements to receive funding. The idea behind the voucher system is that the government is not the body responsible for determining which schools qualify for funding; each parent chooses the school they deem good enough for the price they are willing to pay. If parents do not want to bother with the same standards as the government, let them. And it is true, some parents might make unconventional choices for their child's schooling. Some parents might want their child to attend school solely at an art studio, or a sports training camp, or any other specialized facility. However, I have trouble imagining any parent with bad enough judgment to pay to send their child to a video arcade for their schooling. As for the religion issue, the voucher system does not violate the First Amendment in any sense. The government is not forcing religion upon anyone; the only religious institutions receiving government funding are those that people choose to patronize. Mandatory public schools forcing religious curriculum is one thing; people willingly accepting the religion of their choice as part of their education is something else. (If people want to attend a madrassas, that is up to them, but again I do not imagine much demand for such an institution in America.) The school voucher program also provides a neat way out of the creation science/evolution debate currently plaguing many public schools. As it currently stands, American schools are forced to decided whether forcing or forbidding the teaching of intelligant design violates the First Amendment. By allowing families to attend any school they choose (ones which could take any number of stances on the issue) this problem is resolved without any new law being passed. Now I do not have to attend a school that teaches creation science, creationists do not have to attend a school that teaches evolution, and the government did not have to choose sides either way. The Constitution issue is perhaps the thorniest, but not altogether applicable. The Tenth Amendment specifically allows the States any power not reserved by the Feds. Therefore, it is not false to say that the States have the right to fund schooling through a voucher system. On a side note, I do take some issue with government funding of education, but the substantial spillover benefits we receive by granting greater access to education outweigh the costs. There are safeguards against the government hijacking schools under a voucher system, and since all people receive benefits from an educated populace schools meet the definitions of a public good.
Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools.

Thank you for challenging me to this debate, Mr. Logos. I can only assume you did so upon viewing my profile and seeing I was AGAINST vouchers. You probably also noticed I am a libertarian, so the perspective I'm arguing from should not be surprising to you. You say: "Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools." I agree that public schools are dreadful and should be abolished. My argument is that vouchers effectively turn all private schools that accept them into public schools. Instead of arguing for the abolition of public schools, you are thus actually arguing for the abolition of private ones! By what standards would the government decide a school was eligible to receive a student's vouchers? There would have to be some standard, right? I mean, I couldn't open a school at the video arcade and accept vouchers as "tuition," could I? Whatever the standards, since virtually all "private" schools would do whatever necessary to accommodate (and get that government money), then clearly, the government would be in control of these schools -- just like they're in control of the public schools now. The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 (Grove City College v. Bell) that any college or university with even one student receiving government money is thereby subject to government regulation. Do you trust the government to not exercise this power when it comes to K-12? Later, the Supreme Court ruled that vouchers for religious schools did not infringe upon the First Amendment's supposed guarantee of "separation of church and state." That was the correct decision in my opinion. But do you want the government subsidizing religious schools through its vouchers? Think about the implications of this: We could have Wahabiist madrassas like they have in Saudi Arabia, and taxpayers would be footing the bill for them. Actually, this brings up another point: Although the First Amendment merely says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion," many state constitutions have specific laws outlawing taxpayer funding of religious schools. How do you plan to get around this hurdle? If religious schools were excluded, then obviously, there would still be people who footed the bill for the voucher system (through involuntary taxation), and yet had to pay out-of-pocket to send their children to their school of choice. Finally, it seems you are arguing for a voucher program implemented by the federal government. Thus, I have to ask you: Where does the Constitution grant the government this authority?
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

For this final round, I will simply sum up what I said earlier.The battle of Stalingrad was important because:-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties-This was the largest defeat for Germany-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axisWhy Stalingrad was more important:-The battle of Stalingrad took place at a time when the outcome of WWII was still uncertain. The same can not be said about the battle of Berlin.-Stalingrad was the climax of the European theater. The battle of Berlin was simply a conclusion.-Germany suffered much more at Stalingrad than at the battle of Berlin. This includes 850,000 of Germany's best men.-Anybody could have captured Berlin. As a matter of fact, the battle of Berlin never really needed to happen. The Soviets could have just waited for America to develop the atomic bomb.-By the time the battle of Berlin happened, Germany was down to boys and old men. -Hitler failed to capture Stalingrad. He spent everything on the city but failed. This was a huge humiliation for Hitler. -Hitler lost all chances of gaining oil. Oil was important for tanks, planes, trucks, ships, etc. Conclusion The battle of Stalingrad was clearly more important because it decided the outcome of WWII. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, the USSR would have fallen and the British empire would have been next. In terms of deciding the outcome of WWII, Stalingrad stands above Berlin. Germany had no chances of winning by the time the battle of Berlin happened. It was outnumbered at least 10:1 by both the Soviets and the Western Allies. Stalingrad decided the outcome of WWII. Had it not been for the battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets would never have reached Berlin the battle of Berlin would never have occurred. As a result of Stalingrad, the Soviets won at Kursk, Operation Bagration was successful, and WWII was finally won.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

Stalin has a unclear version of what "important" means."1. Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things; significant:"http://www.thefreedictionary.com...The Battle of Berlin drew the European Theatre to a close. It ended World War 2. Throughout WWII, Germany lacked sufficient oil. Without oil tanks and planes don't work. Trucks can't transport troops. Oil was vital in WWII and whichever side didn't have enough of it would lose the war. Red Herring.The Battle of Berlin was Hitler's last stand. By 1945, Germany was no longer a threat to the British Empire. Red Herring. Not really. Stalingrad was a much larger defeat for Germany than Berlin. I digress The Battle of Berlin arguably led to East/West Germany, which would make Stalingrad look like a child fallen from his bike and got a bloody nose, but this is off topic. And this is really restating the point. "Great" battle are indeed known about how much enemies were killed, but also how it shaped the war and what would happen if the battle never taken place. It is debatable that WW2 would have ended more or less the same if Stalingrad never happened.Yes that is clear. The only problem is that even before the battle of Berlin, Germany was already almost dead. Red Herring. It does not matter the state of Germany. What is important, is that the Battle of Berlin ended the European War. Stalingrad doesn't do that. Stalingrad LED to it, but it didn't end the war. True, however this isn't really what decided the outcome of WWII. I don't know about that. Hitler's death and the lost of Berlin decided it pretty well.Thank you for your time.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

"Would not matter. The war ended as the result of the Battle of Berlin." Throughout WWII, Germany lacked sufficient oil. Without oil tanks and planes don't work. Trucks can't transport troops. Oil was vital in WWII and whichever side didn't have enough of it would lose the war. "Battle of Berlin saved them too." The Battle of Berlin was Hitler's last stand. By 1945, Germany was no longer a threat to the British Empire. "Germany suffered a staggering 1 capital city" Yes that is what can be said about the battle of Berlin. "This was the largest defeat for Germany ...Intill Berlin" Not really. Stalingrad was a much larger defeat for Germany than Berlin. "Finished off Germany and finally brought an end to WWII in Europe." Yes that is clear. The only problem is that even before the battle of Berlin, Germany was already almost dead. "Caused Hitler to kill himself." True, however this isn't really what decided the outcome of WWII. "Germans lost Berlin." It would be nice if my opponent elaborated on this a little more. Conclusion: During the battle of Berlin Germany suffered around 800,000 casualties[1]. Most of these were not battle hardened veterans. During the battle of Stalingrad Germany suffered 850,000 casualties including some of the best German divisions. Without the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of Berlin would never have happened. Stalingrad was the bloodiest and most decisive battle of WWII. Berlin happened when the outcome of WWII was no longer in doubt. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)Fair enough.-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [1]Would not matter. The war ended as the result of the Battle of Berlin.-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)Battle of Berlin saved them too.-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [1]Germany suffered a staggering 1 capital city-This was the largest defeat for Germany...Intill Berlin-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)And Berlin finished it of.-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of StalingradSee above.-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axisInteresting. Never heard about this before.--------------------------------------------------------------My reasons:-Finished off Germany and finally brought an end to WWII in Europe.-Caused Hitler to kill himself. -Germans lost Berlin.This is really all that is needed. It ended the European Theatre and Hitler shot himself.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

There are many reasons that the Battle of Berlin was not as significant as Stalingrad was. Reasons that Stalingrad was important: -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [1] -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [1] -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis Reasons that the battle of Berlin was important: -Finished off Germany and finally brought an end to WWII. -Caused Hitler to kill himself. Clearly the battle of Stalingrad played a much more important role in the actual defeat of Nazi Germany. Anybody could have captured Berlin. Lets see what my opponent has to say. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

I hope nobody will complain about me making another one of these debates. I will argue that Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII in terms of effecting the outcome of the war. My opponent will choose a battle that he/she believes was more important than Stalingrad and show how it was more important than the battle of Stalingrad. Round 1 is for acceptance and stating which battle you think is more important than Stalingrad. 4 rounds with 8,000 characters per round. Good luck!
School kill creativity in our children and cause them to be as dull as a Sheep!!

ConclusionTo say that school kills creativity is equivalent to saying restaurants make people sick. Obviously this is not true. If someone gets sick it is because something is wrong with the food cooked inside the restaurant. Pro has argued that we need to do away with schools. This is easily refuted by looking at the restaurant analogy. If someone got sick at a restaurant it would be absurd to do away with restaurants when the problem is with the individuals who work in the restaurant and not the restaurant itself. Pro has also argued that schools need to improve. This only proves my point that schools are not inherently bad. Schools can be good depending on the individuals and the educational system within the school.