BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. Federal Government Should Abolish the Department of Education

Thank you for instigating this relevant and not super common debate.My opponent has conceded that if I prove any of the following then I win:A. That the harms he presents in the status quo are not significant, B. That his plan do not solve his harms, or C. That his plan is not the only way to solve the harms.I can say honestly, that I can prove at least B and C.So here we go.My opponent's plan does not solve the harms:My opponent's case, when it comes to the harms, is not actually logical.The first harm my opponent lists is that the Department of Education is irresponsible. It is not practical to fix this problem by abolishing the Department of Education. This is something of an extreme example, but it's a proper analogy.For the sake of argument, let's say that there's a fourteen year old boy who is completely unproductive. He doesn't focus on any sort of responsibility, and he's constantly getting into fights. Let's say that this is a harm to the people around him, because he's a bad influence, and he hurts people when he punches them. The proper solution to help this child is not capital punishment. That wouldn't remove the harms. That would just kill the boy. The proper way to solve the harms would be to rehabilitate him.What I mean by this is that it is much harder to solve the harms of a system once you have destroyed it. If we were to destroy the department of education, every single city and every school board and every state would suddenly have the hierarchy cut. That means they'd be in a state of disorder because the order they once had no longer exists. So all of these thousands of individual parts would have to reorder themselves.The second harm he provides is that 1.4 trillion dollars have been wasted. This is an extreme statement. That's the approximate amount of money that the Department of Education has spent. That is not how much of it was a waste of money. I'm not going to deny that they may have wasted money, but the fact that they have wasted money does not necessitate that every single dollar was wasted. Thus, my opponent has not proven at all that 14 trillion dollars have been wasted by this department.On another note, my opponent's plan does not give funding to the state. In fact, it denies funding to the state at all. The states are all given the power of the Department of Education. That means that they need some sort of extended spending power in order to carry out those same powers. Otherwise solving this harm is just as easy as reforming the system. That leads me to the next point.This is not the only way.I'm going to be brief about this. It is possible to add further regulations to the system to reform its spending powers and its power distribution with the states.Reform is a possible solution.That means that abolition isn't the only solution.That means that I win point C as well as point B.I've fulfilled my burden.
The U.S. Federal Government Should Abolish the Department of Education

I would like to argue that the Department of Education should be abolished. I would like this debate to be somewhat similarly structured as Team Policy debate. I will be using stock issues and the such, and I have the burden to prove. The con simply has to refute my points and win any of these issues. A. That the harms I present in the status quo are not significant. B. That my plan does not solve my harms. C. That my plan is not the only way to solve the harms. Looking forward to a fun and educational debate!
The U.S. Federal Government Should Abolish the Department of Education

I accept my opponent's apology. I understand that abbreviating my name (Jonelle) to "Jon" in my username can be fairly misleading. Anyway, I'm excited to be finishing up my first debate since my hiatus on DDO. I'm going to provide some short rebuttals respectively to the previous speech then go over a couple voting issues. 1. My opponent has presented a harm and a possible solution, however, my opponent's only support for his solution being effective is that there are a lot of schools that aren't public schools, and most of them probably do pretty well. I agree some of them do well, but I haven't seen any proof that all or even most of them do well, which means that statistically my opponent's plan could do more harm than good. 2. Concerning my opponent's second harm, he has readjusted my syllogism to fit into an assertion. In order for my opponent to prove the statement "the Department of Education has not gotten one bit closer to achieving its goal," he needs to provide proof that every single plan and program has been completely unsuccessful. My opponent has not done that. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this harm is not nearly as significant as my opponent leads us on to be. 3. My opponent has not and cannot provide evidence that literally no possible reform will work. He can only assert that none of them will work. That means that no matter what I still have this argument. My opponent said that if there's another possible way then he loses the debate. I've given another way, and my opponent hasn't given actual evidence to prove me wrong.
The American crim justice system ought 2 place a higher priority on retribution than rehabilitation

There are a number of interesting problems in this round, I'll try and list the one's I think are central. - Recidivism - Rehabilitation coexisting with retribution - The notion of revenge in society So I think this discussion flows fairly easily from one to the other. The argument that is being constructed is as such: "Recividism is rampant and can be reduced by orienting towards rehabilitation instead of retribution." With several citations to statistic to support this claim. The biggest problem I can see with the style of argument being presented is that at no point is there ever a clear illustration of what a system that was purely concerned with rehabilitation would look like. All the studies cited take place under a system which Pro believes 'places no emphasis on rehabilitation and is into the whole "tough on crime" notion' so these inmates eneter prison first, and through prison are introduced to rehabilitation programs. An important thing to note is that when they are -discharged- they get jobs, not when they are rehabilitated. All the examples given speak to rehabilitation existing alongside retribution, enforcing a retributive sentence and then attempting to rehabilitate while it is going on. The reason we do this is to preserve a feeling of justice and to respect the rights of the victim. We have no empirical evidence for what a system that put no emphasis on retribution would produce in terms of recidivism, and so neither of us can make definitive claims in that direction. What we do have are empirical examples of families reactions when the murderer of a loved one goes free after a year, or gets off on a technicality. They do not feel whole, they do not feel restored meaningfully. Of course the notion of revenge has relevance in our society, it is the very core of our intuitions towards justice. There is one claim made at the top of the last argument that is fairly telling: "Retribution appeals to victims and their families, yes, but justice is not about making people happy. It is not about satisfying victims and their families. It is about serving justice and providing protection." Serving justice -is- about making people happy, restoring to them some measure of what was taken in a criminal act. Satisfying victims and families is, in large part, the chief obligation of the justice system given that those families ceded their own ability to seek that satisfaction -to- the justice system. We can't really know about the protection but we can certainly know about the justice.
The American crim justice system ought 2 place a higher priority on retribution than rehabilitation

So aside from merely emotional indicators of how terrible the prison system is, it seems like this is a debate about where the justice system's obligations lie, the importance of retribution, and to some extent also the efficacy of rehabilitation. The first of these strikes me as the most important, so I'll begin with it. Where the obligation of the justice system lies. I don't think many of us have a problem with the notion that when an individual commits a crime she/he forfeits to some extent the protection owed to her/him by the justice system. The victim and the family of the victim have made no such forfeiture, so it seems like pretty easy to say that the bulk of the obligation lies with them. Retribution is more in the interest of the victims/their families and thereby it ought be the focus of the justice system. That's a pretty basic argument, but it's one that I think will ultimately be very difficult to refute. The importance of retribution is hugely important, for two reasons. Firstly it allows the wronged parties to feel as though justice has been done, and thereby to not let the wounds of the past fester until they become terminal, incurable. Secondly it is a right of redress that citizens cede to the government and they must see that right being inacted by the government or come to believe they are not being governed correctly. Lack of retributions creates problems both with how one views oneself, and with how one views the government which is supposed to be protecting and avenging you. So then there's the efficacy point. When considering a hierarchy of priorities for the justice system, it seems as though we can prioritize the always efficacious "retribution" component over the questionably potent "rehabilitation" component no problem. What reason do we have to believe that if rehabilitation were preferenced it would become more effective? And that's the problem that we are talking about. What was proposed was a question of priority. Prioritizing retribution over rehabilitation doesn't mean not trying to rehabilitate, it means doing so in a way that is still recognizably punishment, retributive, even if that makes the rehabilitation less effective. What does preferencing rehabilitation over retribution look like? Would it still be understandably retribution? The need to see "justice done" is a basic human one, and I don't think that that means much more than the need to see retribution. We don't have to like that about ourselves, but we do have to recognize it, and to respond to it in such a way that correctly puts that need ahead of a gesture towards rehabilitation that might not bear the fruit that ostensibly justifies it.
The American crim justice system ought 2 place a higher priority on retribution than rehabilitation

why is the debate topic so long? mmk um yeah i wanted to debate the current topic i have for class but then i got paranoid that my opponent would find it so this is my old topic, and i'm just going to go ahead and skip the fancy contention stuff b/c i've already thrown away my notes This is a bit hard since Aff doesn't present first...? Retributivists often want to adopt proportionality as a mean of punishment, but that's not possible with our current justice system. I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segragation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this . . . . I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for. - A.H., Indiana, 1996 With rehabilitation it could have been possible for A.H. to control his drinking and driving. [letter to Human Rights organization] [someone accept this debate! i've got better arguments i swearr, it's just weird debating the resolution when there's no one to debate...]
Immigration into the UK should be reduced.

In regards to your first point, yes I would want "deportation to be legal" and to be "allowed to deport them by the law". An explanation containing many points I would use for your second point "how these immigrants are destroying the UK" is here: http://www.express.co.uk... My point wasn't about not allowing anyone into the country, it was about preventing those who have a negative effect on society coming in. This prevention should be allowed because otherwise a country that acts like bees to pollen for immigrants such as the UK will be overwhelmed. There will be too many people using our British resources and too many people not contributing to society positively. I never mentioned anything about allowing only "people born in the UK to live in the UK" I simply made the point that only "those who can provide for themselves and benefit the country" should be allowed in. That makes no reference to their place of birth. People should be "allowed to do as they please". In their own country. Yes the population is increasing rapidly and that is going to increase population globally. Yes the population should be reduced "effectively and ethically". I also know that immigration is a by product of a rapidly increasing population. However, though I am in support of the argument for population reduction, that is not quite the issue. The issue is that regardless of the increasing movement of people worldwide, a disproportionate number immigrate into the UK because, unlike other countries, we are perceived as the "land of milk and honey"(1)for immigrants. This is caused by our weak benefits policy(1) and our soft touch on border controls(2) among other factors. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Immigration into the UK should be reduced.

"anybody who has entered the country illegally should be deported" Wouldn't you want to deportation to be legal and be allowed to deport them by the law. You need to explain how these immigrants are destroying the UK. Going back to my point, why should a country be allowed to not allow anyone to enter the country. There isn't a reason that a great country such as the UK should support a large number of people because of the greatness of the country. The country should not be allowed to exclude people and only allow people born in the UK to live in the UK. People should be allowed to do as they please. If anything, your argument should be about reducing the world's population effectively and ethically instead of just blaming the large amount of immigrants, which is a by product of the world population increasing at too rapid of a rate.
Immigration into the UK should be reduced.

Yes. I mean that people who do not contribute and cannot provide for themselves shouldn't be allowed in and that anybody who has entered the country illegally should be deported. If there is an important reason, such as a war, I think that countries with a larger landmass which are more likely to be nearer the source of the conflict should take in those immigrants. However, the number taken in and the length of their stay should be limited. I think this country used to be great but immigration on the whole has been a major contributory factor in a 'fall from grace'. This is not the only factor however.
Immigration into the UK should be reduced.

I believe that the situation of mass, uncontrolled immigration into the UK has become a serious problem. Here, when immigrants arrive, they get free healthcare, free education, free housing and free benefits.(1)Many are not even kept track of by the government(2) The majority of these immigrants don't integrate and don't contribute to the UK.(3) Instead they attempt to get their families and friends across our borders (4), often with great success. They form isolated communities, particularly in Southall(5), Hounslow and Heston in London and Birmingham and Manchester elsewhere in the country. Most don't speak English and are either passively or aggressively hostile to the native white population. If this continues we will become an ethnic minority in our own country.(6)(7)(8) Of course, controlled and limited immigration brings the benefits so commonly referenced such as filling the skills gap and helping the economy but the situation is far past this point today. A common counterargument is " What has an immigrant ever done to you". In response I say "it's not me personally, it's what they have done to my country". Perhaps you'll think I'm 'racist' but if you wish to trade insults, my preferred term is 'biased'. If you live in the UK in or near London and you're sceptical about my arguments, take a drive through Southall and come back to me. I advocate a points based system such as that used in Australia for immigration control. This is not about racial profiling or negative discrimination it is about deporting those who take and don't give and allowing those who can provide for themselves and benefit the country in. (1) https://uk.answers.yahoo.com... (2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (applies to immigrants too) (5)http://www.visitsouthall.co.uk... "Southall Broadway is like "Little India" as you don't need to speak English to fully enjoy the experience" (6) http://www.express.co.uk... (7) http://www.express.co.uk... (8) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Defend your Faith

The faith I subscribe to is atheism. I am going to keep this short and logical. Yes before you ask this is a faith, because I have faith in the fact nothing exists. All other religions invoke a deity, and each one believes in a different God. Each one competes with each other about which is right, and all believes that their religion is correct. This is the fundamental flaw in religion. As a religious person you are disallowing 99.99 percent of other religions, so why not go one more? Why should someone to subscribe to atheism? The answer is because it is the logical choice. Nothing in this universe requires the presence of a divine deity to function. No one can be raised from the dead or reborn. Science tells us basic facts about live that cannot be refuted. Things in this universe operate under certain laws and certain patters. Death is final, the universe can cause itself to exist or began to exist from singularity, and nothing in the universe requires the existence of a deity to function. Almost anyone from a logical stand point would agree that there is point to over complicate things. Trying to insert a God where a God does not need to be inserted is pointless. An appeal to occam's razor would be the simplest answer. When their are competing theories (deism is not a theory as there is not facts to support it as is but...) the simplest one is usually the best. We don't need a God so the answer is there is not one. We can't be raised from the dead because science tells us this. We can't come back to life because it contradicts known laws and facts. Over the course of the past thousand years science has evolved and told us things we never could imagine. We now know the earth is not flat but round. We know there are different galaxies in the universe, and about the big bang. Science is evolving and always changes in order to fit facts. Religion offers no such courtesy. If someone contradicts religious texts, religious people try to find a way to disprove it. Even if it is fact. That type of logic and faith is what hurts the world. Why should you vote for atheism and not my adversaries faith. Through science we have learned and made modern medicine and helped heal people. Through science we have made cars, airplanes, trains , and space ships. Through science we have won wars, lost wars, and made weapons that cannot be contest. Through science we have learned truths about the laws, rules, and features of the universe that we had no clue about hundreds of years ago. As time goes by, the more we learn. The more we learn, the more we know that there is no need for a God. If there is no need for a God, why insert one. The most logical faith is believing that faith is not prudent. I urge everyone to believe and side with reason. Atheism is the most logical choice.
Defend your Faith

In this debate I am asking my opponent to defend whatever Faith they believe in by writing an essay describing what and why they believe. It can be highly personal or it can be mostly factual--either way, defend it the best way you think you can. I will defend my Faith in Buddhism, why I believe in Karma and Reincarnation. So pick a tenet or two and defend why you believe them and why others should follow. The debate will be one round, I will go first--there will be 10,000 characters, so don't worry about not having enough space. Good luck and happy debating!
Religion has given far more to science than atheism ever will

I am Con here and my position is against the resolution: "Religion has given far more to science than atheism ever will". I will start giving some definitions for the words from the resolution, which are very important to understand why it is false. Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. [1]Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. [2]Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. [3]Now I will give my argument on why the resolution is false. Argument:Religion doesn't give anything to science. Religion is a set of beliefs, about what science tries to "know". When the people in the Pro's examples made the discoveries they did, it was not because of religion. The fact the most of the people that made something for science were religious doesn't mean that religion did something to help, to contribute, as a matter of fact, religion already give the answers to the believers. The only reason it is like this, is because most of scientist or people that did something for science were religious. And of course, atheism doesn't give anything to science either. The resolution is false. Religion and atheism gave the same to science: Nothing. If Pro still wants to argue that religion gave something to science, then he/she would have to solve the non sequitur and provide explanation or evidence that shows that it is religion that gave scientist that "something" that made them do what they did, and no their brains. .. or their beards. Vote for CON. Sources:1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...3. . http://dictionary.reference.com...