BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should all schools in the US be held by the same academic standards

I accept.Standard (n): A level of quality or attainment. [1]*Pro will be arguing that all school in the United States should be held by the same academic standard. I will be arguing against this resolution.Let's Begin.C1. Private SchoolsWhile most public schools in the United States are held by the same academic standards, many private schools exist that are better than public schools academically and provide a better education. Unlike the free public schools in the United States, these private schools require tuition fees, and they are generally very expensive.Many parents pay a lot of money so that their children can go to private schools to get a better education than if they went to public schools. Because private schools recieve more money than public schools, they are able to hire better teachers, provide better facilities, and a better education overall. This is fair because they are payed, whereas public schools are free and funded by the government. Why should parents pay for their childrens' education, only to have them recieve an education at the same level of a school that is free? C2. Students with Special NeedsCertain students are not able to keep up with academic standards. These students may include: blind students, deaf students, students with down syndrome, students with ADHD, students with autism, etc. They cannot learn like normal students, so many of them need to attend special schools that they would be comfortable in and meets their needs. These schools do not meet up to the same academic standards as a public school.C3. Gifted and Talented StudentsCertain students really love learning, and they are really good at it too. They excel so well in school, that it becomes very easy for them and they don't feel challenged. They want to recieve a higher education. Therefore, many of them attend special schools that are academically higher than the average school. Why should students who want to and are able to learn more be denied a better education than the average student?Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...
Minimal Driving Age

As a roadmap I will first uphold my own case, then go on to neutralize my opponent's. He makes just one very weak attack on my case. He says: "My opponent's case is a set of statistics, which are actually the result of a minimal driving age." HE GIVES NO WARRANT. How are these statistics a result of the minimal driving age? How? Statistics are only an observation of reality. This IS happening. Deaths ARE resulting from people's carelessness. THESE ARE THE FACTS. I don't see how my opponent would want to increase these numbers by allowing more inadequate drivers on the road. Multiple studies have proven that the human mind is not fully capable of constantly producing sound judgment until at least 20 years of age. Now to fully bring down his case. First of all, my opponent contradicts himself with his first contention. He says that the ability to drive is indirectly related to age. If they are related, then why allow for ability to lessen while age lessens. This is contradictory to his case. Point 1-NEGATED. Second, he says young citizens may be required to drive. By allowing them to do so, we would ONLY INCREASE the danger on the road. Poor judgment leads to poor consequences-and more deaths. Point 2-NEGATED. So, If you vote affirmative, you are voting for safer roads, and fewer deaths. If you vote negative, you vote for increased danger levels, and a higher death rate. With those two options, I think the answer is rather obvious.
Minimal Driving Age

Actually, my arguments are divided into these two parts: 1. "the ability to drive is only indirectly related to age" 2. Younger citizens may be required to drive. 1. "Just because the select few minors can use good judgment and drive well, doesn't mean we should open the doors for the hordes of teens to create hazards and accidents across the US" Actually, it is the other way around. Just because the select few minors who can't use good judgement and can't drive well, doesn't mean we should prevent all teenagers from driving. The majority of teens do not drive to show off. There is purpose. 2. Many mothers and fathers are required to drive their teens everywhere because of a minimal driving age. Often these parents also have to work. Competant drivers are kept off the road by a requirement that is neither based off of skill nor competence. And further, idly waiting for parents to pick children up leads to mischief, especially when it occurs regularly. My opponent's case is a set of statistics, which are actually the result of a minimal driving age. -Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.- ...because teenagers are aloud to drive at 15 or 16 based off of their age and not their skill -16 year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.- ...because they are less experienced. This is to be expected. Of course new drivers have higher crash rates than experienced drivers. Creating a minimum driving age won't effect this. Requiring that skill be used as a requirement and not age would improve this. -16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.- ...same as above. -3,490 drivers age 15-20 died in car crashes in 2006, up slightly from 2005.- ...same as above. From this statistic, we grow more confident that most teenage drivers are competent. Again, to base the right to drive off of age and not skill is the illogic that causes these deaths. -Drivers age 15-20 accounted for 12.9 percent of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes and 16 percent of all the drivers involved in police-reported crashes in 2006.- Same as above. -The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates the economic impact of auto accidents involving 15-20 year old drivers is over $40 billion.- Drivers acknowledge that accidents can damage their property as well as others, and when they or their parents are held responsible, this doesn't really matter. Liberty is sacrificed for the dumbest reasons. Among these are safety. This is a clear example of tyranny and government illogic. To base the right to drive off of skill and ability rather than age would make the streets safer and the people freer. Finally, to increase the minimal driving age would result in no change in death tolls. However, instead of 16-year olds dying, it will be 18-year olds dying. Inexperience is inevitable, as we are all first-time drivers at one time. 'It has nothing to do with age. It's experience and education," -Massachusetts State Representative Bradford Hill http://www.boston.com...
Minimal Driving Age

I apologize about the mis-communication. Please see the comment I posted. I will first refute my opponent's case, and then state my own. Although he does not clearly state this, one can divide my opponent's case into two parts. 1. Ability to drive is not related with age 2. Under-age drivers are sometimes required to drive. First, one must ask why are minors (Under 16 year-olds, for Colorado) are not allow to drive? The reason is twofold. One, the state believes they can show poor judgment. They don't want accidents caused because someone has shown poor judgment. This is also why we don't allow children to vote, or mentally retarded people to vote. Poor judgment. Two, Minors in particular often use driving to show off, to ask girls/guys out, or run away from their problems. In all of these cases, accidents usually occur. Rash decisions are made, and people are killed. Just because the select few minors can use good judgment and drive well, doesn't mean we should open the doors for the hordes of teens to create hazards and accidents across the US. This is not safe, and shows poor judgement. Second, my opponent says that sometimes it is necessary for minors to drive. (Examples please?) Even if this were the case, it would create yet another danger by allowing minors to drive. Now to my case. My first and only argument will be: Teen, and under-aged minors driving is unsafe and costly. Here are some statistics taken from the United States regarding teen driving. -Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. -16 year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. -16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers. -3,490 drivers age 15-20 died in car crashes in 2006, up slightly from 2005. -Drivers age 15-20 accounted for 12.9 percent of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes and 16 percent of all the drivers involved in police-reported crashes in 2006. -The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates the economic impact of auto accidents involving 15-20 year old drivers is over $40 billion. These stats speak for themselves. Allowing under-aged teens to drive would be a HUGE mistake. "Resolved, there should not be a minimal driving age." Negated. sources: http://www.rmiia.org...
Minimal Driving Age

Incorrect. I am CON. Oh well. There should not be a minimal driving age because the ability to drive is only indirectly related to age. Instead of having to wait to be a certain age before showing one can drive, one should merely have to show that one can drive. The ability to drive may improve with age, but it mostly improves with experience, and starting people driving younger would put more experienced drivers on the road. Further, it may be necessary for someone under the age of 15 or 16 to drive, and though they are coordinated enough, they are not permitted due to age. It is stupid to base the right to drive on age. I await my opponent's argument.
Day-age creationism is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This will be a debate as to whether or not day-age creationism is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I will be arguing that it is, so accepting this debate means you will be arguing that it is not. To clear up any confusion, I will define some vocabulary:literal - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory (in this case, the word "day" in Genesis) day-age creationism - an old earth creationist view where the "days" in Genesis are longer than 24-hour periodsIf you have any questions/concerns, then please voice them in the comment section before accepting the debate. The rounds will be structured as so: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Initial Argument(s) Round 3 - Rebuttal(s) DO NOT: -post arguments in round one -rebuttal my initial argument(s) in round two-post new arguments in round threeThis debate is open to anyone who wishes to accept, there is no selection criteria. Enjoy!
Raising The Minimum Wage

To close out the debate, I'll just state the fact that minimum wage has been increased many times with no negative effect on the economy. Also wages in general used to be much higher adjusted for inflation. Actually I hate to bring facts into the picture, Because political debates are always about values, And never about factual solutions. So the question about wages is not about what's best for the economy. The question about wages is about who benefits. Working people should benefit more.
Raising The Minimum Wage

I didn't mean to say that markets should be left alone. I'm saying that they never are, And that capitalism takes into account any input imposed. Markets are the result of human interaction, So capitalism is a joint venture of economics, Society, And government. In many countries religion is involved. There's no such thing as an "artificial" policy influence because free markets don't exist without policy. Which is not to say that markets don't have rules, And I think its best to go along with market logic as mush as possible. But the direction of the market is the emergent result of local interactions -- therefore markets do not follow any intended direction, And is not a source of moral guidance. Those things should be decided by society and that's what policy is for. To expect the market to make value judgments like that is a cop-out. One goal of policy is to align market values with social values. The problem with letting the market decide minimum wage is that the market value of a person's labor is way off from the social value of their work (ie, What we think they "deserve"). If markets corrode or offend social values (like work ethic), People will impose their values on the markets, Which is how we got minimum wage laws to begin with.
Raising The Minimum Wage

You raised some interesting points, But i found some of them conflicting. You mentioned for instance that the good thing about capitalism is that equilibrium will in theory find itself if a market is left be. That I agree with. You also mentioned the repercussions of not raising the minimum wage which all seem like sound reasons, But then you would be inherently disrupting that equilibrium. I guess what I meant by arbitrary is really any means of changing the minimum wage via policy and not letting the free market decide where wages should be. What I've observed in the economy currently for instance is that for slightly more skilled labor and above employers are having a tough time finding candidates either due to lack of people skilled enough to take those jobs or simply because they're not paying enough. For those companies to survive they will either have to offer more money, Be willing to train less qualified people, Move to more automation where possible, Or a combination of all the above. I think in general when left to their own devices all companies more or less will experience this and the end result whatever their decision may be on how to proceed will be the right answer. When you extend that argument to the low and unskilled labor market (i. E. Those being affected by minimum wage laws) you'd eventually find the same principles holding true and a price equilibrium for labor would be found. In other words, I think were saying the same thing when it comes to the nature of free-market capitalism and that it's resilient enough to handle and respond to change. I think what I'm trying to get at is that if we impose to many artificial limitations, Whether they be based on sound research or not, We may not always know or like the end result, Or at the very least there may be undue consequences to our actions. As far as some of the repercussions of not raising wages you mentioned they may very well hold true, But ultimately if these challenges were to persist we both could certainly agree that the markets for labor, And all others for that matter, Would have to change and shift in some way, Whether it be towards more automation or what have you. Trying to stop the natural 'flow' of the economy towards one end or another I feel is a bad choice to make. Instead I think we as a society just need to constantly be vigilant and able to be more dynamic in how we adapt to changing economic pressures as opposed to react and try to stop them or prevent change we see as undue when the reality may be otherwise.
Raising The Minimum Wage

Great topic, Thanks for bringing it up for debate. There are also repercussions to not raising the minimum wage. I'll get to that. But first, $15 is not arbitrary. It's based on an estimate of today's cost of living. Wages from yesteryear are more arbitrary by today's standards, And become increasingly arbitrary as time goes by. Second, The whole point of capitalism is that it establishes it's own equilibrium despite constant change. That's the best thing about capitalism -- it balances itself out. Technology is constantly disrupting the equilibrium and nobody cares. But when we talk about labor's share, All of a sudden the economy is a finely tuned watch that can't handle disruption. This is a ridiculous double standard and bogus representation of economics. Third, Businesses cut non-essential expenses anyway -- they're not charities. This is why we see more automation even without higher wages. Businesses are in competition with each other. Because wage laws apply to all businesses under jurisdiction evenly, Minimum wage is a non-factor in peer-on-peer competition. Forth, Prices would probably go up, But more people have more money to pay for things. Where does the extra money come from? It's diverted away from owners and financiers who live downstream, And into the pockets of people who buy goods and services and keep the economy going. As you stated, This increases demand. But where you're wrong is that demand for goods increases demand for labor and that's what balances out. The difference is that more people are included in the economy. Which brings me to the repercussions of not raising wages. The economy is becoming more narrow-based. This is why the stock market keeps going up even though people don't feel the economy is very good. Most people don't factor into the economy anymore -- we're just tagging along behind the major players. Prices of assets aren't based on what users can afford, They're based on their value to investors who trade them between each other. Another repercussion is work ethic. If you pay workers less, Work literally becomes "worth less. " The people who work the hardest are dead-enders and illegal immigrants -- it's only a matter of time before younger people don't see work as valuable, And they will be right as we don't reward the work people do.
Raising The Minimum Wage

Albeit a noble cause to champion the betterment of the lower class and fight for the right to higher income, I think there are some serious potential repercussions that could stem from arbitrarily raising the minimum wage or allowing it to adjust freely and based on the consumer price index or by some other impartial means of quantifying the current cost of living. For instance, If you raise the minimum wage in general or allow it to fluctuate based on expenses, Either way you would be creating some kind of interference with where the equilibrium lies in the job market. Why is that bad you may ask. . . Arbitrarily setting wages to high would create a surplus of labor as employers wouldn't be able to instantly adapt to the increased labor costs and stop hiring/layoff current workers deemed non-essential. Allowing the wage to fluctuate with the cost of living would most likely cause wages to shoot up in the long term leading to a similar effect only with a higher cost of living to go along with it. This is assuming that because wages would go up to match the new cost of living associated with various products and services, More money could now be spent on these items the next year creating a demand that would otherwise not be there. As a result the market would react and prices would go up causing wages to than react under this system and rise once more the following year, And so the cycle would continue either inflating the currency indefinitely, Or if wages became so high that employers were unwilling to pay them, You would then once more have a surplus in labor, As well as a surplus of overpriced goods that would now be in an economic free fall. People would be unemployed and unable to afford things, Then prices would fall out and businesses would shut their doors entirely. At least that"s my doomsday scenario. What do you think? Is my understanding of the economics at play here at all accurate?
Generalist approach > Specialist approach

Well, frankly speaking I was leading to that point. A absolutely agree, that in this particular case equality should take place. Neither of them two should prevail. But the only addition to your point I want to make is that there must be the third player. Apart from generalists and specialists there should be a fused version of them two: Specialists, that know tons of things about other spheres of our life. Wouldn't that be amazing? This would demolish the existing segregation between these two types of people. Yep, strangely, but I'm not supporting generalists anymore. I give my vote for the fuse, for it's a golden middle and the most real one, that can already be implemented now. There can be no 100% specialists and 100% generalists, in my opinion. There's always something inbetween.
Generalist approach > Specialist approach

Good point. But what makes you think of quantity-dominating world? Do you really think, that people neglect quality to pursue numbers? I cannot agree with that. What about doctors? Should they neglect quality in their labor? And would you agree to visit such doctors? That is the problem, quantity doesn't mean quality and vice-versa. You either do alot, but with mediocre quality, or you do one thing and do it awesome. Sounds like a choice for me, doesn't it? This issue is more about our own preferences and choice. We choose what we feel matches our way of thinking and mentality. The world needs both generalists and specialists, that's what I think. There shouldn't be any dominator of them. This two notions should be treated equaly, otherwise we would face crisis-like situations, don't you agree?
Generalist approach > Specialist approach

Yay! Thank you so much for joining the debate! This is my second attempt, because the previous one was a complete failure. So, specialists, huh? Let me see. I really like your comparison of specialists with gears. I agree, that a gear, that performs its function at its best has more chances to be successful. But wouldn't it be much more benefitial, if this gear could work despite its position in mechanism? Like, you've taken it out and placed somewhere else - and it's still going! Wouldn't that be awesome? So what I'm trying to say is that this kind of a gear reflects the creed of generalists: "adapt and conquer". Just kidding, I invented this one. But hey, I'm not that far from the truth. With the ability to adapt to various situations and being well-rounded, generalists have far more chances to deal with any task they're given. Yeah, they're far from being deep specialists in any particular field, but I'm convinced, that in the contemporary world people look for quantity, rather than quality. Today, preference is given to those who did more and embraced more than those who did one thing and did it as perfect as possible. I might be wrong, but the pace of the present life is too fast, so we cannot make long pauses. We just have to move on. And being a generalist is a key to success in this case.
Generalist approach > Specialist approach

Hey there, mr. Vagnetto. As far as I can see, you are pro-generalists. Well, considering everything you've said, I should adress to the point, that the present standing of things revolves around specialists. You see, in order to make a huge mechanism run, there must be proper gears in proper places. The point is, that specialists are the gears of every mechanism. Every particular specialist excellently performs one particular action, just like a gear, that cannot change its form or size, for instance, but can easily be a part of a whole thing. The world badly needs specialists, especially in such fields as medicine, law and politics. You won't be afraid to be operated by a professional surgeon, or you won't hesitate to trust your case to a professional lawer, and you would feel safer under the rule of a professional politician. I guess, specialists can be also generalists in a way, for it's simply imposible to stick to one field only. People are born to be diverse and this diversity is an integral part of humans' nature. So one way or another, we still end up somewhere in the middle.