BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
History is an Important School Subject

Sorry to say that you have not won. Actually, while very well put, you are quite wrong. While history is boring and a lot of people don't like it, you need to know about your government and how it came to be that way. Why do people watch the news? to learn about what is going on. What is going on right now will lead up to future events. it is the same thing with the past. Everyone keeps saying, "I don't know why everyone hates American." Well, take a look at history and you will find out exactly why people hate America. You might also have some clue as to what will happen in the future with wars and things. Also, Revolutionary War. Let's just talk about that really quick since you brought it up. How do you know about the Revolutionary War? I can guarantee you weren't born during that. So you know about it because of history class. Well, if you didn't have history class, chances of you knowing anything about that war is slim, and you wouldn't have been able to use that comment against me because you wouldn't have known about it. Also, if you take a look at history. Lots of countries saw what slavery was doing to our country, and they either had some revolutions themselves, or they just stopped it altogether. Slavery will probably never repeat itself because of history classes letting us know that a war of slavery helped put an end to that. Also, along the lines of history repeating itself, I can confidently say that it had. World War One caused World War Two. Because things were not taken care of properly after World War One, a lot of countries were upset. I know a lot of people think that WW2 started because of Nazis, but that's not true. It started because Germany wanted to take back control of all the land that got taken away from them in WW1. However, they got carried away with it. But History may not repeat itself Exactly the same way, but events happen because of what has happened in the past.
History is an Important School Subject

My plan is that history is offered as elective in school. This way, if students actually do want to take the class, they can. However, as my opponent said, many kids hate history class. I will prove that they have the right not to take it. First off, my opponent said that history repeats itself. This is a cliche that is actually not always true. She said "if you actually pay attention just a little bit, you might find something that fascinates you." Although you may be interested in history, its not actually that important to real life. Take another mandatory class, math. If you don't know math, you're pretty screwed. Math shows up all over. When you're doing your taxes, do you have to know the exact birthdate of King Henry II and when he reigned? No! Even if history did repeat itself, which I WILL prove is true in one second, you wouldn't need to know all the stuff history is teaching you, just the very bare basics. My opponent also used the example of a job interview, but this is neither something you would learn in history class, nor learn how to do. Now, why history doesn't always repeat itself. Take the example of the Revolutionary War. So many times in history, and logically, the powerful side (Britain) will beat the weak side (the Colonists). But here, that didn't happen at all! Or take the example of MLK. Discrimination has thrived for so long. But here you have a guy who's good at speaking to completely tear the idea up! There are occasional times when history does repeat itself, but for the most part, it does not. Heraclito said that When you enter a river twice, you do are not the same one that entered before and the river is not the same. Obviously people have known this for a WHILE. So, I've refuted my opponents points and provided my own. Obviously, I have won this debate.
History is an Important School Subject

You can give a plan. I would be interested in what you will have that be. History is an important class for school to keep for their students. Even if you are not going into politics, you still need to know about what has happened in the past. Everyone knows the old saying that history repeats itself. Well it's true. You can even watch it with parents and her children. Even if the parents are separated from her children, you can still see that they choose the same paths as their parents did. If you do not know the past, how can you prevent the same things from happening in the future? Also, on top of having knowledge about the past of the world, or even just in your own country, history is just an interesting subject. Lots of people hate history and the class they have to sit through to learn it. They probably think, "What's done is done. Let's move on." Well if you actually pay attention just a little bit, you might find something that fascinates you. When you go to a job interview for a company, don't you want to know a little bit about the company before you apply or go to the interview? Then you would get on the computer and look up their history. Funny that you should find what they do, their policy, and depending on the company, who they have traded with or been partners with in the past. It's really cool to find out things about your company, and it really impresses the employer when you know so much about them. I know, kind of went off topic and away from school, but in a weird way it ties back to school. Sitting in class learning history, can make it easier to look up histories on new jobs. In fact, as you go through life, you might even find that you enjoy learning about the past more and more.
Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time!

Babe Ruth is well recognized as a baseball player. Ask almost any person in America who he is and they will know. But being well recognized doesn’t mean you’re the greatest. While Ruth was playing there was something called the Negro Leagues. It was made up of black players that because of racial discrimination and segregation could not play in the American or National Leagues. Now some of these players were as good if not better than many players in the AL or NL. Oscar Charleston was one of the best. When you compare his and Ruth’s 162 game averages, Oscar leads in every category except HR, base on balls (BB), and RBI’s. Oscar had more hits, runs, stolen bases, at bats, 2B (doubles), and 3B (triples). Oscar Charleston’s BA and SLG (slugging) were better than Ruth’s. He also hit .318 with 11 home runs in 53 games against white major league teams. Yet on the same sporting news list that ranks Babe Ruth at number one, Oscar Charleston is number 67. Babe Ruth was famous because fans watched him. But even at the same time there were players playing better than he was. . http://www.baseball-reference.com..., . http://www.baseball-reference.com...Babe Ruth also could not have done what he did without the players on the field with him. While Babe was with the Yankees, the majority of the time either Bob Meusel or Lou Gehrig was hitting behind him. Both of these players made it so pitchers could not just walk Ruth to get an easy out. . http://www.baseball-reference.com..., . http://www.baseball-reference.com... “The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime. ” –George Herman (Babe) Ruth. Babe Ruth may have been good but when looked back on he was not the greatest. He hit during an era where more runs were being scored than before and higher than any time after. Offensive stats were rising and all through the league players were hitting the ball more and farther. He pitched during the dead ball era where pitchers were commonly getting ERA’s around 2 and over 25 wins. Babe Ruth got to hit when hitters were excelling and pitch during a time when pitchers were dominating. Thank you for debating me on this topic.
Defense Budget Reduction

I think that the amount that we currently spend towards defense is absolutely ridiculous when you compare it to our other programs. From my current understanding we are number one in military spending and if you were to combine 2-7 we would still beat them. While on other things like education we are 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math, and who knows it could have dropped since I last checked. While many colleges and universities are high ranking the reason why is because they are not apart of the government and are privatized. As far as social progress is concerned we are sixth, Canada is rated fourth! All jokes aside Canada actually tries when it comes to social progress. Granted there are some less flattering reports such as the U.S. tying with Ireland at 35 or 36th. Now here comes the fun part, the breakdown of the U.S. defense budget. FBI counter terrorism spent about $2.9 billion, Homeland Security spent $46.9 billion, DOD spent about $707.5 billion, and interest incurred from past wars ends up to be about $109-$431 billion. Quite a bit if you were to compare it to yourself. While on the other hand you have things like Science, Space, and Technology combined together and just being $31 billion, Energy $23 billion, Community and Regional development $32 billion. While education is just $68 billion, something kind of feel off to you? When we are spending more on surveillance of domestic and foreign bodies, and the production and maintenance of wars in lands that hold no threat towards us. Here is something wrong here. A great example would be our military bases in Germany, do you really think that we still need to occupy Germany? Do you think that there will be a revolt in Hitlers name? What about Japan? Where our military is looked down upon for many unlawful acts? What acts you might ask, things like rape and murder would be an example. Then after the public outcry they would hide behind the walls of their base. I am not saying though we should completely remove the military, I think that in many areas we should make a graceful exit and then reduce the size. Yet we should be able in times of stress bulk up our military, for the protection of ourselves and potentially our allies.
Philosophy

If we are debating this paradox in purely logical terms, let me reiterate. Logic is the study of reasoning. I conclude that logic is exactly the reason why this paradox is unsolvable and here's why: Reasonable, Logical Statements: A million grains of sand is a heap. If I take away a single grain away from a heap of sand, it is still a heap. It is a simple premise. Yes, I am repeating myself and making circular statements, but such is the nature of this paradox. Sorites Paradox is attributed to Eubulides of Miletus(1) in around 400BC and now, in 2010AD it is still unsolved. The man was a master of lateral thinking, giving us the famous Liar paradox. The statement I am typing right now is a Lie. Language has obviously changed since Ancient Greece, yet the nature of language hasn't. More importantly the nature of Man hasn't changed. My opponent and I are ultimately wasting our time, thought I have enjoyed the process. As Seneca the Younger (2) said of such Enigmas: "Not to know them does no harm, and mastering them does no good." It's just good fun. RESOURCES (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Philosophy

My opponent's supposition, that a paradox persists by virtue of linguistic imprecision is a form of "special pleading." By his metric of resolution, the semantic deficits of language would confer sufficient dubiety to any argument to exhaust all attempts at logical explication. This is precisely what Carnap alleged. But note Quine's response: "There is no place in science for bigness, because of this lack of boundary; but there is a place for the relation of biggerness. Here we see the familiar and widely applicable rectification of vagueness: disclaim the vague positive and cleave to the precise comparative" (Quiddities, 109). Thus, the reasoning that qualified predicates of description--e.g. "tallness"--sustain the paradox proceeds from the conclusion that the paradox is true; this begs the question. The purported inexactitude of my example of tallness is restated as: "How tall does some have to be to be classified as tall? A tall glass of milk is tiny compared to a tall building. How old does something have to be to be classified as old? An old man is young compared to the age of the Earth." But this precisely reaffirms my assertion of contextual boundary contingency; the meaning of the first answer depends on epistemic justification in comparative terms--irrespective of quantity. This is not permissible by the logic of the Socrites paradox, where "tallness," once predicated, would preclude any subsequent contradictory description. A "tall" glass of milk should be so described in so situations. And describing quarks as large would be as valid as describing them as small. My opponent's conclusion inherits the flaws of the paradox itself, affirms its consequent: "Unless every adjective had a numerical value relative to all situations, this paradox will exist." But a paradox--as far it is a meaningful philosophical term--persists only in logical terms; and it was only upon such terms that I sought to refute it.
Philosophy

This is actually my first venture into the topic of philosophy. Perhaps we can debate the other two topics after. Anyway, I will argue that there is indeed a paradox and will present arguments that support its definition as a paradox. Let me first define a paradox. Paradox: A statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation that defies intuition. A good example of a paradox is the "Crocodile Dilemma": A crocodile steals a child, telling the father that the child will be returned unharmed if he can guess what the crocodile will do. There is no paradox if the father guesses that the crocodile will return the child. However, if the father guesses that the crocodile will not return the child, the situation becomes an endless loop. If the crocodile returns the child, the fathers statements is false thus the child cannot be returned. If the crocodile doesn't the return the child, the fathers statement is true thus the child should be returned. Sorites Paradox, known as the Paradox of the Heap exists because of the imprecisions inherent in all languages. Two statements that are completely true separately join to make a ridiculous proposition. The classic example of Sorites Paradox is as follows: 1) A 1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap. 2) A heap of sand minus one grain of sand is still a heap. Both of these statements are true, this cannot be denied. Unless every adjective had a numerical value relative to all situations, this paradox will exist. How tall does some have to be to be classified as tall? A tall glass of milk is tiny compared to a tall building. How old does something have to be to be classified as old? An old man is young compared to the age of the Earth. The flaws exist, therefore the paradox exists.
Philosophy

Hello charlesdarwood. After looking up what the hell "polemical" meant (po-lem-ic: a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.), I searched "wikipedia" for unsolved philosophical issues. http://en.wikipedia.org... I've chosen three from different areas, which I'd like to debate and I'll leave it up to you to choose which one you would like to debate AND which side you'll take. Epistemology: The Mï¿½nchhausen Trilemma, also known as Agrippa's Trilemma http://en.wikipedia.org... Metaphysics: The Sorites paradox, also known as the paradox of the heap http://en.wikipedia.org... Ethics: The phenomenon of Moral Luck http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm really excited about this. Good luck!
More Marine Reserves should be made in New Zealand

A marine reserve is like an underwater national park. It"s a safe place for our sea-things to live and breed. This is important because we"ve become really, really good at fishing. If we continue fishing with our long, long, long-lines and our big fishing nets, there maybe no more fish left in the sea! Inside a marine reserve, people cannot take living things, or the things that make up our sea-creatures homes like rocks and coral. But people are welcome to play, swim, dive and boat in a marine reserve. In New Zealand, we have around 33 marine reserves but they cover an itsy bitsy piece of the sea (0.3%) that surrounds our country. Our oldest marine reserve is one hours drive North of Auckland, it is near a place called "goat island". It was formed in 1977. There are so many colourful fish in this marine reserve that it attracts over 350,000 snorkellers, divers, sightseers and marine scientists every year. Because the fish have the chance to become BIG, fishers hang out on the edge of the marine reserve, or lay their crayfish-pots on its boundary, so they benefit too!
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

I said not in excess so your point about 'too much annoyance' being bad is true. " My opponent has conceded this point. "If peopel want to step on your toes to rise the top of the corporation you work in, you mst be ready to rip their fott off your toes and step on theirs. " I think what my opponent is saying is that if people are willing to harm you to get ahead, then you must be ready to harm them in return to get ahead. What does this have to do with the Deadly Sin of Anger? Non excessive Anger is unnecessary to work to get ahead, if someone is metaphorically stepping on your toes you can metaphorically step on theirs without actually exhibiting any Anger at all. If someone is literally stepping on your toes, you can calmly do whatever is required to remove their foot from your toes, and, if necessary, place your foot on their toes in retaliation, without exhibiting Anger, thereby "getting ahead". My opponents war statement about computers has not been adequately connected to success, getting ahead, or anger. Additionally, even without the loss of life, bloodshed, suffering and widespread destruction that is associated with World War II, humans may still have developed the computer. The statement "without world war two we'd nto have computers" is therefore unwarranted. Human nature is irrelevant to success and the premise of this debate. I have definitively refuted my opponents arguments and proven that the 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess are not essential.
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

I said not in excess so your point about 'too much annoyance' being bad is true. You need strength of anger to push others out of your way. If peopel want to step on your toes to rise the top of the corporation you work in, you mst be ready to rip their fott off your toes and step on theirs. This is metaphorically the basis of war (without world war two we'd nto have computers, Thanks Alan Turing). You NEED ANGER it is HUMAN NATURE to be aggressive and destructive at times because if not you are just another pu$$y that's all goobye I win.
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

My opponent has defined Anger as a strong feeling of annoyance displeasure or hostility. He has also made the following assertions "WIthout this you would never be annoyed at enyone. .. " This is untrue, you do not require a "strong feeling" of something to still have that feeling. Strong annoyance is not required to be annoyed. You would still be able to discipline children since you would still have a feeling of annoyance and displeasure, just not one that qualifies as Anger. In fact I posit that good discipline does not incorporate a show of anger, it instead punishes a bad action with a negative feedback without over-reacting with Anger. The discipline can still be prompted by annoyance and displeasure, it need not be prompted by Anger. Finally, my opponent says someone's identity will be lost if others are angrier than them and intimidate them. He does not state how the relative Anger of others translates to intimidation. Just because someone is angrier than you does not mean they will intimidate you, or even that you will lose your identity. I have refuted my opponents arguments.
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

For goodness' sake I love how you fail to attack the other six. fine.Let me once and for all destroy you.Anger is a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility http://oxforddictionaries.com... WIthout this you would never be annoyed at enyone whether it be an oppressive government, abusive boss, intimidating co-worker or your own partner. You wouldn't be able to discipline chldren since there'd be no sense of emotional displeasure when they did 'wrong' or 'right' since this is only achieve through annoyance at the 'wrong'. In fact you might as well kiss any sense of identity goodbye because others will be angrier than youand intimidate you left right and centre.
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

My opponent in the previous round has cited various situations in which he thinks Anger is necessary for success. He states that the whole concept of martial arts is to use anger, he does not cite this statement and it is therefore unwarranted, also, what does this have to do with success or getting far in life? He cites a situation in which a "big guy" is "pushing infrotn fo you int he queue", and states that you "can't push him, he is stronger, you can't fight him, he will win, you msu tinstead use fury and rage to shout your head off..." My opponent here is asserting that you need Anger in this situation, not only has he not proven how Anger in this situation will contribute to success or betterment in life, Anger is unnesecary. You can calmly call out the person who is pushing in front of you and have them removed by whatever authority figure is present. If there is none present you don't need necessarily need to use Anger to get your way anyways. My opponent also states that "you will push him to the limit and if he loses it well then you'll end up in the hospital and he in prison." My opponent seems to be saying that pushing him to the limit is 1. unexcessive Angerand 2. essentialHow is ending up in the hospital essential, or conducive to success? My opponent has not clearly demonstrated how unexcessive Anger is essential. I have successfully refuted my opponents arguments thus far.
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

Do you think intelligence helps? Is that why you think usually the highest IQ nerds are the ones bullied and trampled on in schooling life? Please. It all comes down to how IRRATIONAL and UNINTELLIGENT one can become to think they are superior and dominating over an opponent. The whole concept of martial arts is to use anger. The dea is that if you vent while trainign you will be calmer while not. Anger is needed anywhere in life that there is confrontation. Somethign as simple as a big guy pushing infrotn fo you int he queue. You can't push him, he is stronger, you can't fight him, he will win, you msu tinstead use fury and rage to shout your head off and not give in to this threats, you will push him to the limit and if he loses it well theny ou'll end up in hospital and he in prison, truth of life is the angry ultimately win. If he kills you then he clearly has not been using the sin of pride whereby he forgot that whatever he does might ruin his reputation and status. AS logn at all 7 sins are exprienced at the same time you will get far in life.