BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT anger is something we have had in us from our birth but that does not justify it in any way on its usage. The feeling of anger is only something that will have someone succumb to an outcome that is negative and is not in its place anger. Lukevera stats that "By practicing the right habits, an individual can tell the morally acceptable from morally unacceptable" but the fact is this does not give an excuse on how to use anger. Anger in itself is a self destructive method that is used in specific conditions that can not be measured by someone else for they are not in place to be able to pass judgement. If a good man sees his father being slain will not react the way he SHOULD which is usually vengeance. Anger is that which is a rushed emotion. Anger takes control over us and is not used in a "middle of deficient and excessive" way. It floods into our systems and is done irrationally. Anger is an impulse reaction set in motion by an impression of receiving a wrong from someone. These wrongs are not "emotions" rather they are something that is suffered by someone not giving it weight. Overcoming the main reason of an emotion is retribution which is in spite of anger something that has lost controlled with the involuntary motion of an emotion. If one has been harmed they think it right to seek vengeance.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

1)According to Aristotle virtues are characteristics based upon situations we find ourselves frequently placed in. 2)Out of the two types of virtues, moral and intellectual, moral is learned by habituation. 3)Anger is a virtue in which we have had in us from our birth. 4)Since a young age we have had the ability to become angered, but not the refinements of as to why or when. 5)By being placed in situations where anger is prominent, we then ourselves gain anger as a virtue in either a negative or positive moral way. 6)To be excessive, to be deficiant, and good temperament are three ways in which the virtue of anger can be seen within an individual. 7)By practicing the right habits, an individual can tell the morally acceptable from morally unacceptable 8)By using this sense of good and bad, anger can morally motivate us in either direction. 9)If we place ourselves in the middle of deficient and excessive in regards to anger, we can then be morally motivated to commit acts of moral goodness.
The US should establish Progressive Wage Laws

Alright, this is an entirely new proposal based off of several already proposed wage reforms to the minimum. With that said, I'll try my best to explain it this round.Basically, they are left wing laws, that decide the wage of a company based on their....1. Employees (Third Factor)2. Capital (Liquid)3. Income (Revenue Margins)4. Benefits (Employee/Employer Agreement)For example, a rich company with high income, will have to pay a higher wage, like Walmart. While a poorer company with less capital and income, with much more employees, would pay a lower wage.The core of progressive wage laws, is that companies will pay wages based on their ability to do so. This action, makes sure that the small buissness survives while the large one's pay a higher due. In addition, if a small buissness like Eddie's car wash decides to give vacation days, then the employees can take those in a omit of additional wages. The choice is up to the employee and employer. The filings over who will pay what will be handled by a seperate new beauracracy, or the IRS. Anyways, I've had 7 people already tell me this is a good idea, so please give feedback in the comments. First round is acceptance. You may not make arguments that the wage should stay the same.A wage floor and ceiling would exist. For the debate purpose, we will set the rates between 10.10$ and 15$.*Ask to accept in comments*RFD's may have a one comment extension.
Studies in the STEM fields are more difficult and more useful than humanities (Lit, History, etc)

First off, thank you for engaging me in this debate. I agree with you that the arts do have impressive effects on cognition and creativity, but I disagree with your argument that "no other area develops them to an equal degree." 1) Creativity involved in building a robot and programming it to do something is astounding. And I must say, after building a robot or finishing a computer program, I feel pretty confident. 2) Problem solving, I don't think I need to discuss how engineering and science develop problem solving. 3) If you have every tried to write a useful program or to build something more complex than a shelf, you will know how much perseverance is required. I agree that good design is essential to any successful device, but do you use your iPhone primarily b/c it looks nice or because it can do things like call, play angry birds, browse the internet, check email? All of those are breathtaking feats of engineering. Design is essential when it comes to getting an edge over competition, but if all the iphone had was a nice sleek case and a cool dial pad, i doubt it would be as successful as an uglier phone that could browse email, call, and play games (i.e. blackberry.) Blackberry used to dominate because it had technical capabilities other phones didn't. It wasn't until other phones caught up in capabilities that the competition turned to user interface( http://www.newyorker.com...). You also did not address my point about people avoiding engineering due to fear of the difficulty. One of your sources did state that the real world does value engineering more than English degrees. In this current world economy, is it not more effective to choose a more marketable discipline? The current job market trends have already shown it values Engineering over humanities if politicians are throwing around ideas for enticing foreign engineers to stay not foreign historians or actors (see source in previous)
Studies in the STEM fields are more difficult and more useful than humanities (Lit, History, etc)

The first thing to address is your apparent disdain for the humanities, which is an opinion not shared by the vast majority of people. Theater, art, dancing, music, writing, and the numerous other subjects that fall into this category are invaluable to our culture and creative processes, both of which are required to alleviate ourselves of many societal ills and promote innovation. As I understand your argument, you don't seem to have any issue with someone taking interest in these things. You do, however, sound rather condescending towards those who make them their life's passion when other things could be, as you say, "more useful". Let's look at some of the benefits children experience when they study the humanities, the arts in particular: 1) Boosts in creativity and confidence, 2) problem solving skills, and 3) improved focus and desire to persevere [1]. While the article I'm linking here only mentions their 'Top 10', there are literally dozens and dozens of observable improvements in areas that would likely otherwise remain unstimulated. That's not to say that other areas of study don't also formulate some of these same benefits, but rather that no other area develops them quite as fully. Secondly, note one of the most famous innovators of our time: Steve Jobs. "Steve Jobs taught the world that good engineering is important but that what matters the most is good design," [2]. The entrepreneurs, inventors, and engineers that you think so highly of usually hold a high level of respect for the humanities - at least, the successful ones do. And what's more, many of them work hand-in-hand with the people who you contend are taking the easy way out to create and improve the technology and innovations that keep our world running. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://techcrunch.com...
Studies in the STEM fields are more difficult and more useful than humanities (Lit, History, etc)

In today's job market, it is clear that the economy desperate for engineers and scientists (http://www.bloomberg.com...). The US is desperate enough to consider granting visas for just studying engineering in the US. With this high demand and need, how can people justify choosing to study English Literature or History? Granted these fields may be of interest to some people, but these fields are not nearly as useful as Engineering. My stand is, people choose fields like English Literature and History b/c they are much easier than Engineering. I am not against studying Language and History but the idea of MAJORING in these fields esp with the job market the way it is, is simply ridiculous. Are people avoiding Engineering b/c of fear?
Studies in the STEM fields are more difficult and more useful than humanities (Lit, History, etc)

I apologize. I meant to, but I hit my character limit. And you're quite welcome! Thank you, as well! I've taken several engineering classes throughout my years with the PLTW program. I've written complex programs (which was always my forte) and built small machines for difficult tasks. Something is missing from that enterprise, though. Personally, although this is subjective I feel it relevant enough to expose, I feel as though the humanities are more beneficial to myself. Reflecting on life, learning philosophy, understanding the symbolism in literature and art, and connecting with stories and other people is by far one of the most important things we can do as humans. Networking and creativity drive innovation, as I mentioned before, but I give merit to your comparison of the iPhone to the Blackberry. However, every single aspect of each device is a product of design. I would attribute no more than effective function to engineering. I believe you've misinterpreted my source. The latter of my two aforementioned sources does admit, in all actuality, that it is harder to find and fill a job position with liberal arts or humanities degrees; it does not argue that the world values engineering over humanities, because that simply isn't true. The arts and humanities train our empathy and make us better human beings. People who feel compelled to contribute to our culture and society in this way aren't taking the easy way out, afraid of pursuing a degree heavy in math or science. Instead, I contend that they are taking a much harder road. Contributing to existence and helping to find and trigger the core emotions of humanity through philosophy, dance, art, and innumerable other enterprises when often times ridiculed is just as noble, if not more so, than seeking out a secure, well paying, needed job position out of duty rather than desire.
Under age working

To continue, I know that many companies would not want to hire a 13 year old because they are still immature and most 13 year old's are still in elementary school. I would be hard-pressed to find a company that would not consider a 13 year old employee as a liability. At such an age this could cause stress and feelings of rejection from not getting hired and at such an early time in their life they should obviously be more focused on their education and other more important things rather than dealing with this newly found, self-inflicted pressure. I also find it hard to believe that a 13 year old child will know how to manage their finances properly when studies already show that 16 year old's are financially irresponsible.
Under age working

I find that your argument in support of underage working at 13 years of age is false. From what I take of your argument, you support the working of 13 year old children because you claim there is a shortage of workers via a lack of readily available college students to take open jobs in the U.S. and therefore there is a surplus of available jobs here in our country ("fill in those gapes" -a quote from your argument). I find this argument to be directly false as we are in an economic crisis here in the U.S. and in fact there is a shortage of jobs. The overwhelming majority of jobless and homeless american citizens are not college students. If you were to raise already high competition levels that exist in the U.S. for these scarce jobs (by allowing more people to work via lowering the age of underage workers) it would only make the economic crisis even worse and cause an even greater shortage of jobs.
Under age working

Under age working should start at the age of 13 (If the teen age wants to work some one cant make them work it also depends on your grades they must be B's or A's) with out a permit.Why do I think so because most teens at 16 and up are most likely to learn responsibility and most likely learn how to get a job and fill up all the present and the future job that the U.S.A will have.Their is not enough collage students to fill in those gapes because teens cant make money for food, a home, and afford collage.So that is why I think that working ages should state at the age of 13 with out a permit.
The Way Americans Teach Math is Not Working

The first thing I would like to note is that you didn't reply to any of my arguments. You mentioned not learning deeply into each concept and you gave the Fibonnacci sequence/golden ratio as an example. But what you said is not true. In Algebra II/Pre-calculus, you do delve deeper and discover more about the Fibonacci sequence. Also, you said math teachers in America teach one thing one day and another thing the next day. That is also not true. Math teachers often spend 1-2 weeks on each "Topic", or group of related lessons/concepts. And then they will move on to another, often very closely related "Topic". Also, in the new Common Core Curriculum, each "Topic" will say how this math concept is related to or used in real life. America"s math system is working perfectly fine.
The Way Americans Teach Math is Not Working

Good luck and have fun! There is lots of people saying rumors about Common Core being rubbish and all that, but is it really true? The way Americans teach math has been the way for decades-why change? There is not much evidence that the way we teach is not working. You might say our grades are bad, but that doesn't mean the teaching method is not working. For example, in Dublin, Ohio, the average grades are much higher than the national average. (A- in Dublin) That is because Dublin is not a poor town, and there is not a lot of neighborhood crime and violence. These are the reasons why our national grade is bad. Crime and violence. According to the Washington Post(. https://www.washingtonpost.com...), 51 percent of students are poor in this country. I will end with a question: Can you give any specific evidence? Any teaching method that is just extremely terrible?
The Way Americans Teach Math is Not Working

Many students actually do understand why and how. This is part of the new curriculum. Your seeing of this is not good evidence to the contrary. Also, Americans hating math is a stereotype and not proven. It is not true. I will end by saying this: If america's math teaching system is so bad, how come so many kids do so well in math competitions? MATHCOUNTS, ARML, and even IMO are great examples. We got mostly gold medals and 1st place at IMO last year! Americans are good at math.
The Way Americans Teach Math is Not Working

Sorry for forfeiting a round. I was very busy. Anyways, I would like to start off by saying that I did reply to your arguments. I provided facts that the average American student--whether rich or poor--performed poorly in math compared to the average student in other developed nations. This proved that the main reason for our nation's failure in math is because of our way of teaching it. I also gave my example for why America's teaching method for math is egregious, My rebuttal to your counterargument is that , for the first eight to nine grades in school, students rarely delve very deep into any subject. Then, when they start learning Algebra II/ Pre-calculus, they are suddenly thrust into a deeper form of math and often do not understand what they learn. This brings up another reason why American math is horrible: We learn only math facts but do not learn why or proofs for math. In Algebra I and II, students often only learn different formulas that may be hard to remember for some but rarely learn why each formula works unless their teacher decides to incorporate proofs into their teachings, which does not happen commonly. This and the reason that the transition from learning from one grade to another is why American math is terrible. We do not delve deeply into any part of math then, in the later K-12 grades, we suddenly transition into harder things in math (although we STILL do not delve into each subject as well as countries like China do), so the students are suddenly thrust into harder math without being prepared for harder math and often learn little because they struggle to understand anything. I have seen this in many students, whether they are rich or poor students. The students also are just memorizing cold, hard facts without understanding why each fact is true, which means that they could very easily forget many important parts of math. All of this struggle may also fuel students to hate math when math is truly a beautiful thing that has been, in a way, corrupted by the American education system.
Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

"In dealing with vulgar minded bullies, and so much unfourtunately the people of the United States are."-Lord Palmerston. "We also are on the verge of the disolution of the United States."-Lord Palmerston in a letter to Queen Victoria. My source for these quotes is a documetary called Abraham Lincon vs. the Brittish Empire. The documentary could be looked up on youtube. Another quote I have was what Palmerston's Chancellor of the Exchequer William E. Gladstone said about Palmerston and America: "Lord Palmerston desired the severance as a DIMINUTION of a DANGEROUS power but prudently held his tongue." My source is http://www.colfremantle.com....
Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

InfraRedEd keeps on complaining this is a stupid topic he couldn't even win, so why did he pick it in the first place. Note that he has backed away from his burden, that he took on by accepting my challenge to debate. And another thing - I'm not arguing Palmerston was a blithering idiot, but that he had Anti American sympathies. In his first round he called a historian who made a documentary a lunatic, even though he didn't even know who he was. In the second round, he has concluded Palmerston was a blithering idiot, even though he knows nothing about him accept some disturbingly anti American views. I wonder if he'll call me an idiot in the third round, even though he doesn't know me or anything about me! Talk about ranting. So I'm not picking another topic, if he thinks this topic is stupid, then, well it's his fault for accepting my challenge in the first place. In short, he'll have to just suck it up. You should vote Pro because Con doesn't have any arguments, or rebuttals. If my opponent uses the next round to continue wining about how it's a stupid topic that is unfair to have a burden to argue then the judges should remember he the one who decided to accept my challenge, and even though he says I didn't have any arguments, those quotes alone were pretty good evidence Palmerston had an Anti American bias. He should have been able to decide then that this was something he might think is a waste of time. He keeps on saying he should get credit for this and that. Remember to give him credit for picking a topic he now thinks is stupid.
Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

Here I am looking for an intelligent conversation in the middle of the night and here is all there is. Lord Palmerston was a blithering idiot and debating anything about him is a waste of time. His rantings changed throughout his life. In particular, the notion that he was proamerican is not even remotely defensible with this scoring system which asks if you have changed your mind. When we finish debating Lord Palmerston will not have changed so even if I argue brilliantly that Lord Palmerston was somehow an admirer of America, by sorting through everything he ever wrote I still lose the debate. Pick a topic that at least allows the remote possibility of an intelligent conversation. Oh by the way my opponent might stand a chance of winning the debate but still has just been skunked because who cares. I get to rant for sure and that is my payoff. History will decide. Currently serious debaters make jokes about online debating, and for good reason. If my opponent wishes to go ahead with the gigantic waste of time proving something that has pretty much been known for some time, and not doing a very good job of it, I should be rewarded for having the common sense to avoid such a waste of time. Or debate yourself. Ed has better things to do.
Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

My argument is that Prime Minister Palmerston had anti American sympathies. He saw the Civil War as an oppurtunity to split the United States in two. Though slavery had allready been outlawed in Great Britain, and though Palmerston was against slavery, things got close to war between Britain and the United States, when the U. S. Navy seized a Brittish ship. Palmerston demanded the ship back and an appology in a letter he was going to send to America, but first sent it to Queen Victoria. Prince Albert, then dying of Typhoid Fever, revised the letter and made it less harsh. If this hadn't happened, historians say, the Union would have been fighting the Confederacy and Great Britain at the same time. Many say Palmerston had confederate sympathies because Britain needed the cotton from the south. He saw Lincoln as a threat to the European oligarchy. I didn't think I needed to put the historical explanation in when I wrote my original argument, I thought the quotes spoke for themselves. I still do think that there is enough evidence that Palmerston had anti American views simply because he said the people of the United States were "vulgar minded bullies". Gladstone the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister's right hand man, said that Palmerstone "desired the diminution" of the U. S. Palmerston wrote a letter to Queen Victoria where he said "we are on the verge of the dissolution of the United States. " It is my opponent's burden to prove that despite the fact that Palmerston said the people of the United States were vulgar minded bullies, despite the fact his right hand man said he desired the diminution of the U. S. , despite the fact that he bragged to the Queen that "we are on the verge of the dissolution" of the U. S. , that Palmerston didn't have anti American sympathies. I don't see why my opponent thinks Roger Hughes is lunatic, especially if he doesn't know who the fellow is. I also politely object the proposal for a Lincoln Douglas debate format. One last point I would like to make is that I wasn't "making" my arguments with those links, I was using them as evidence those quotes existed.