BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School is there to brainwash people.

They teach you nothing but useless information that you will never use in the real world.There are kids with diffrent talents diffrent needs and interests and they treat everyone the same.If a kid wants to be singer or actor he dosent need to learn maths or physics but they force you to.They are pouring ussles infomation into the young minds of children and are crating mindless robots that will obey.You have to ask to go to toilet you cant speak you have to stay like machine for 7+ hrs.And its not only that they give you homework to control even outside of school.Why to create mindless robot who wont ask questions and will obey the system.And they have scuseeded in doing soo.
I don't care if I'm right or wrong I want the State to protect my Interests.

You have responded with the same argument used in round two. Judges. .. I'm at a loss. The logical implications of this position are that we should all act exclusively in our own self interest and what seems to be a type of moral anarchy. The only other conclusion I can draw is a type of subjective relativism in that we should all do what we feel is right and what we feel is right because we feel it. These leave no room for moral principles that we can all appeal to in any debate, and leaves no room for any progress. The third posiblity is that we should all act in angryducks best interest because he pays taxes. I think the same case could be made for 53% of the nation and I do not see why we should act exclusively in angryducks interests as opposed to anyone else. I fail to see any real argument that has been made, and have done my best with what I have to work with.
I don't care if I'm right or wrong I want the State to protect my Interests.

Thank you for responding. As an ex socialist I'm able to understand why ,as I once did , you may want the State to look after us all. The fact is they never did and never can. We are driven by self Interest from the cradle to the grave. That we are selfish is a Darwinian theme that pretty much explains who we are. The Idea that a politician should work in the best Interests of everyone is laudable but laughable.
I don't care if I'm right or wrong I want the State to protect my Interests.

I will start by contending one of your points. The Darwinist theme to which you refer is not a Darwin theme at all. Darwin explains specification and evolution of species, and shows that physical traits that work the best with the environment are the ones that tend to be replicated. What you are referring to is an extrapolated take on the phrase "survival of the fittest" called Social Darwinism. I'm slightly confused on what you are arguing. The state does not have a responsibility to to take care of everyone, and I am in no way advocating a nanny state. However, the state does have an obligation to take into its consideration all of it's citizens and act in a way that is going to give the most benefit and opportunity to it's citizens. If it is always morally permissible for a person to act selfishly in their own interest, with minimal consideration for others, then you would have to concede that it would be permissible for all politicians to accept lobby cash in exchange for casting their votes in the way the lobby wanted. In doing this, they would only be acting in their own selfish interest. Furthermore, if self advancement is the greatest good, lying to get into office would also be entirely permissible. Surely this is not what you are arguing for, and I am not trying to strawman your arguement, but these are the logical implications of the information you have given me. Please clarify your position and I will rebuttal in round 3.
Geometry Proofs are pointless.

The only argument (from what I am understanding; correct me if I am wrong) is that a proof showing two triangles are congruent is time consuming and boring. It may be great that your child is able to show that triangles are congruent, but this is one of the easier proofs. More difficult ones (such as the apothem proof) would not be something you can simply show a four year old and have them understand perfectly (if at all). There isn't a point in this argument that Pro has stated there is a point. He concedes that we need to find falsities in geometry, and this is the point of proofs. Had the resolution been "Geometry Proofs are Boring" or "Geometry Proofs could be taught in half the Time" or something like that, Pro's arguments would be valid. But as far as geometric proofs having a purpose, or having a point, it is to show geometric falsities. Arguing that it took too much time has no relevance to this debate. Back to Pro.
Geometry Proofs are pointless.

To find the length of a polygon only take about 3 sections to truly learn. Do we really need to use 6 different chapter to find if the sides of triangles are congruent? In construction say you have to triangle all you have to do is measure the sides and then you have the answer whether they are congruent or not. You could've used your nature skills, and common sense, not a whole class, on a proofs. I under that we need to find the falsities in geometry, but I believe you can use common sense on those problems. Do you think I should waste 5 months of my life on things anyone can learn by just looking at them. I honestly think my 4 year old could find out proofs without taking this class. He may not do the math but comparing them if they are congruent is simple. Unnecessary 5 chapters and months of my life. Sources; My College Class
Geometry Proofs are pointless.

Only 1000 characters, so I will be to the point. Rebuttals start now, as rules weren't stated. R1) Common Sense For this to be valid, I want to see proof of this. Give me an example of the proof measuring the length of an apothem of a regular polygon. This proof must not use any mathematical vocab, as well as no equations or mathematical equations. If not possible, proofs have a point. That's really the only rebuttal I need. P1) Discovering Mathematical Truth Proofs are needed to demonstrate the truths and falsities of geometry [1]. Without them, we would not be able to do much more difficult math problems. Simply put, there are some proofs that are easy and could possible be proven with common sense. But there are others that are more difficult and that are necessary to higher level mathematics. Looking forward to my opponent's response. Hopefully this doesn't end in FF. Sources: [1] - . http://investigations.terc.edu...
Governments should not spy on their own citizens

How does Pro know that the government looks at every single text message sent? And if "at one point they were a suspected terrorist, fugitive, or serial killer", and " haven't shown any terrorist activity" for one or two months, why in the world would they stop keeping surveillance upon them? If someone had punched you in the face, then wouldn't you be wary of him even after one or two months? Even if they do this towards normal citizens; the government has its reasons to keep its surveillance upon the citizens. This reason is for the safety of its people. Isn't the safety of the people infinitely more important than a little bit of an inconvenience towards the citizens? First of all, if the government says," I am going to spy on you", then what is the purpose of the government trying to obtain information from the subject? People of America generally know that the government can access what they do in their technical devices. Terrorists are not stupid, and won't just write, "bomb, or kill the President" inside of their texts which they know that the government could access. I am sure the government does this, just to make sure, but I highly doubt that they actually have caught someone that was actually a terrorist. I thank my opponent for a great debate. I also thank the viewers and voters who have read this debate. Overall, I had a great time with this debate. Thank you all!
Governments should not spy on their own citizens

Con provided the example "What if the only way 'for the safety and welfare' of the people in the nation is for the government to collect information from them?". Well, I can guarantee you that the citizens of the nation would prefer to be asked about it, or at least know about it. If the government is hell-bent on collecting information from it's citizens, it should at least let them know. To go forward on Con's next example, "...if there is going to be an attack somewhere, and the people who are involved communicate through their e-mails and such, wouldn't it be right for the government to look into these developments deeper and find out what's going on? What if the attack will kill, say a couple thousand people?". In this case, I believe that we have reached a partial agreement, because as Con states later in their argument, I too believe that "They shouldn't listen into every single conversation or record every text message sent". And yes, I believe that some form of surveillance is necessary, but it should be stated publicly, right away, that the government is indeed watching some of it's citizens. One of the problems I have with this is that often, the governments don't just target suspected terrorists. They target many people around them. And even when they've been watched for one or two months, and haven't shown any terrorist activity, they keep being watched, because at one point they were a suspected terrorist, fugitive, or serial killer. Many times, in fact most of the time, the people being watched are ordinary citizens, with no criminal record or plans to speak of. My main point is, the government should maybe just search for keywords in calls and texts, maybe words like "bomb", "kill President", or other words that might hint some plot. A quick computer program could search for those, and if it finds a keyword, it could search for a further list of keywords within those texts or conversations. If more of those keywords were found, then it could be subjected to further scrutiny. But the texts and calls searched that don't match, that are normal, ordinary texts and calls, shouldn't be logged, or looked at by humans, just left alone. Hence, the government would not really be actively "spying" on it's citizens, but looking only at cases where the keywords point towards a threat.
Governments should not spy on their own citizens

Pro has stated that "The purpose of government is to create an organized system for the safety and welfare of it's citizens." What if the only way "for the safety and welfare" of the people in the nation is for the government to collect information from them? For example, if there is going to be an attack somewhere, and the people who are involved communicate through their e-mails and such, wouldn't it be right for the government to look into these developments deeper and find out what's going on? What if the attack will kill, say a couple thousand people; would it be wrong for the government to violate one person's rights "for the safety and welfare" of others? I believe that the government can and should spy on its citizens to a certain extent. They should have cameras here and there, and als spying on suspected terrorist's phones. This is not a big problem, for it saves more lives than it hurts. Small things like face-recognition in the cameras help catch known fugitives, They also help catch the people who are speeding. But I also agree with you that the government should not over-do it on spying. They shouldn't listen into every single conversation or record every text message sent. This will produce more anger than safety. I agree with you that the government shouldn't spy on the people, but only to a certain extent. They need to spy on the people to catch serial killers and other fugitives of the law. If they don't, the nation will be lawless and the government will lose its power.
Governments should not spy on their own citizens

The purpose of government is to create an organized system for the safety and welfare of it's citizens., The first tribes and groups of hominids came together to be safer, to be able to defend better from an attack. Individually, they couldn't fight very well. As a group, they could fend off a greater attack. And that was the start of government and law; a set of rules by which the citizens operate, rules which were decided by those citizens. The point of an single powerful executive early on, like a male gorilla for example, or an early chief of a tribe, was to know the interest of the citizens and what was best for them, and they had no way of knowing except by asking the citizens themselves. Soon citizens became too numerous to individually ask, and counselors and advisers came to be. Their job was still to know the interest of the general population, and know their stance on topics. Such is the purpose of government; to know and follow the interest of it's citizens. After all, there is no government without citizens. Governments were made by the people, for the people, and the U.S. did not ask it's citizens if they were alright with the mass collecting of their private information in secret. Every citizen is entitled to their privacy, as everyone kept secrets. Why, when this nation was founded, people sent letters. I don't remember the government stealing and opening letters? It is the exact same with emails and texts. And if we continue the analogy, logging someone's phone call is like eavesdropping on their conversation when they are in a closed private room. This taking of information from the government's own citizens without the citizen's consent is not acceptable, and only serves to decrease productivity and increase fear.
Governments should not spy on their own citizens

Round 1 is for the establishing of the purpose of this debate, the rules, and the acceptance of said rules. The goal is to provide a concise, though not unnecessarily brief argument that will not be a pain to read. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. Acceptable grammar (please use spellcheck if needed). 3. Not over-critical 4. Minimal fallacies Do you accept this rules?
That BP and its entire board should have all its/their wealth seized to pay for this disaster.

Many thanks to tvellalott for continuing to argue that the US Government should squeeze BP until its pips squeak. As it happens, regardless of what the legislators do, it seems as though US lawyers acting for plaintiffs on the Gulf coast are about to take BP to the cleaners anyway. That's because BP's disaster planning was so seriously flawed. Here are just two of the many bizarre oversights: 1 - BP's contingency plan for dealing with possible oil leaks in the Gulf of Mexico includes provision to protect walruses – even though walruses are sub-Arctic animals, which aren't actually found in the Gulf of Mexico. 2 - The plan also mistakenly lists a Japanese home shopping website as one of its "primary equipment providers for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region [for] rapid deployment of spill response resources on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis". http://www.private-eye.co.uk... Did you know that at the weekend, while President Obama was on the Gulf coast, BP chief Tony Hayward was out at sea? Unfortunately, he wasn't on board a vessel taking part in the clean-up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, rather he was on board a luxury yacht taking part in a regatta in the English Channel. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Naturally, Hayward's numerous gaffes have not endeared him or BP to the American public and any legal action against is, therefore, very likely to be successful - no matter how unjustified or out of proportion they may be. For that reason, I would strongly urge BP to cut its losses and do a runner as soon as possible. They should sell all their US assets – it doesn't matter if they don't achieve full market value, if they don't gid rid of them the Americans will grab the lot anyway. But, of course, it is quite wrong that BP should be forced to do this and it also sends the following message to other potential investors in the United States: "Welcome to America. We hope your new business here will be successful. But here's a word of warning - if you mess up, the penalties are likely to be wildly disproportionate to your crime and may result in you being prosecuted and having all your assets seized without compensation - just because you are a foreigner. Got that, buddy? Okay, have a nice day." If America see their plans to stick the boot into BP through, it will serve as a serious disincentive to future inward investment in the United States and, therefore, all American members of this site, together with all those with shares in BP, should vote against my opponent's proposal. Thank you.
That BP and its entire board should have all its/their wealth seized to pay for this disaster.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his hilarious response and look forward to the final round of this debate. My opponent began by saying that ACCIDENTS can and do happen. Sure they do. Accidents happen all the time. However, there is a huge difference between an ACCIDENT and an INCIDENT. You see, when I put my hand under the tap to wash my hands and scold myself with hot water, that is an accident. When it's wet on the road and Mrs. Slapper's dog runs out and you swerve, slide and crash, that is an accident. When you cut corners over and over to save a little bit of money on the oil rig you're leasing and you cause a catastrophic disaster which causes widespread damage and kills people, that's is an incident. My opponent then stated that BP will now be aware that cutting corners to save money is bad. Yeah right, and Elvis and Michael Jackson just flew a Unicorn with purple polka dots past my window. You must be tripping balls my friend. BP has a history of causing massive environmental damage. There have been incidents of illegal dumping, death through negligence and price manipulation in the last 20 years. Yeah, they paid, but bearing mind that a few hundred million dollars is not even a great loss to the company, they didn't pay enough. My opponent used the example of Mrs. Slapper and her shares in BP as an example of an innocent person who will be hurt by my proposal. He says I am callous for not caring about her. As far as I'm concerned the share market is just another way of gambling. You gamble on BP because they are a robust, multi-national powerhouse of a company. You gamble knowing that your profit may come from the destruction of the environment, you'd have to have your head stuck under a rock on Mars not to know that. So I still don't care. The Ocean will probably be alright after this oil spill is stopped. Maybe some of the damage can be reversed. I'm asking, what about next time? How can we help prevent this sort of INCIDENT from happening? People go to jail for their entire lives for murder. Isn't BP murdering the Earth, the only Earth we've got, one oil spill at a time? I think BP and its CEOs being stripped of all wealth would REALLY shake up a system that is in serious need of one.
That BP and its entire board should have all its/their wealth seized to pay for this disaster.

With many thanks to tvellaolott for his response, I do acknowledge that this disaster is one of the worst of its kind. However, accidents can and do happen and there's no point in crying over spilt milk (or, indeed, oil). The important thing is to learn from the mistakes made and move on. Certainly, in this case, BP will be now be aware that cutting corners on safety in order to save a few quid here and there represents a false economy. Moving on, the voters should be aware that not all BP shareholders are the high-rolling fat cats they are perceived to be. For example, a BP shareholder might easily be a little old lady called Mrs. Slapper who lives in a deprived area of inner-London. She may have invested in the company to provide an income in her dotage because she is not entitled to a full state pension. This lack of entitlement is due to the fact that she never paid any National Insurance contributions when she was younger, by the way, and not because she didn't work, which she did. It is just that her now deceased husband was a hopeless, drug addicted gambler and she had to go out on the game in order to feed his habits and pay off his gambling debts. Now, because earnings from prostitution cannot be taxed at source and the necessary National Insurance deductions made, the old lady had always put some of the money she earned turning tricks into her share portfolio, the performance of which is heavily dependent on the share value of FTSE 100 companies such as BP. Sadly, since my last post, BP has caved into President Obama's demands and suspended the quarterly dividend. In effect BP have been forced to steal money from the likes of poor Mrs. Slapper in her council flat in Peckham and give it to wealthy businessmen on the Gulf coast of America instead. That's a shame. It's a crying shame, it really is, but incredibly, my opponent's attitude is: "I understand that this disaster has already cost BP...shareholders a lot of money. I just don't care." Now that's just plain callous, isn't it? Please, I urge you, dear voters - examine your consciences. Shouldn't BP's right to keep its legally earned and already taxed profits be respected? And shouldn't BP also be allowed to pass these profits on to blameless shareholders such as poverty-stricken pensioners like dear old Mrs. Slapper? I think they should and that's why I am asking you to vote Con. Thank you.
That BP and its entire board should have all its/their wealth seized to pay for this disaster.

FACTS: -At the time of this debate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has grown to around 337,000 tons of crude old, making it the forth largest to date. However, the next highest, the Ixtoc I (1) oil spill (around 460,000 tons) went on for around 12 months, where the Deepwater Horizon spill only began around 2 months ago. -Unlike the Ixtoc I, which was an accident, this Deepwater Horizon spill is the result of negligence and cost cutting. In the months leading up to the April 20 disaster BP repeatedly cut corners to save money. (2) REBUTTAL: I understand that this disaster has already cost BP directors and shareholders a lot of money. I just don't care. It is time that an example is made. The damage done here cannot be completely reversed, even if a trillion dollars is spent. It would certainly do a lot of good though. Perhaps if the BP directors are completely crucified, other companies will think twice before making the same mistake. The Earth is getting more and more polluted. All the politics and all the money will mean nothing when all the air and all the water is toxic. How many more ecological catastrophes will it take before one of these trillion dollar corporations is made accountable? RESOURCES: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
That BP and its entire board should have all its/their wealth seized to pay for this disaster.

Direct quote from http://en.wikipedia.org... "Since the 20 April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, in which 11 people died, BP's public standing and stock value have dropped substantially, losing nearly half of its market capitalization. The disaster, involving a leaking deep water oil well, has devastated a vast area of the United States marine environment, killed sealife and has a serious impact on the local fishing industry. Efforts at containing the spill were at first inconsequential but some progress has been made since the fitting of a cap to stem the leak." I propose that EVERY member of the BP board should have all their assets liquidated and all wealth seized to pay for this catastrophic natural disaster. The company's assets should also be liquidated. It is time these wealthy CEOs take responsibility for the actions of the company they profit from. Anyone making a fortune as these men are, should have to face the billion dollar consequences of such things. I don't want to argue the semantics of this debate either. Perhaps a small pension would be acceptable for some of the people who weren't directly involved in the decisions that lead to this disaster. All employees should be paid out their entitlements. I look forward to my opponents arguments.