BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

My opponent tries to cower himself behind statements like "Just because you are going for high pay, doesn't mean you don't have a passion for it." or "Just because you tell them not to, doesn't mean children won't follow their passion." Yeah, no kidding. But to me, in a short debate like this, my opponent shouldn't be playing the 'sit on the fence' game. This is an "income vs passion" issue and while I definitely understand that income and passion can be aligned, I feel that it is understood that we are not talking about these cases. We are talking about either high income and low passion against high passion and low income. To be fair, this is certainly the case in many developing countries. In India for example, thousands and thousands of students enrol in Engineering because it is one of the best industries to improve their quality of life in a nation with severe misdistribution of wealth. In Malaysia, the top industries are Engineering, Medicine, Law, you name it. And while OF COURSE many students do have a liking for what they are studying, the main reason they are in it is because they want to have high paying jobs. I would like to remind my opponent that I never said we are crushing the passion of children. I agree that we should develop their curiosity etc. And part of that is to encourage them to pursue high paying jobs to improve quality of life so they can have more time on their hobbies and interests. This is especially true when more and more kids insist that their 'passion' is becoming the next music superstar or football athlete. People keep telling them to 'follow your dreams' and 'you can do it!'. While we should seriously assist them in developing these skills, it is no good to fuel their imagination when the truth is they don't really have talent in these things. If they are really good at it, then there is NOTHING WRONG with pursuing it because that is job stability as well which falls under what I agree on. But not when they are just average.
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

My Opponent claims that parents should encourage our children to sacrifice their passions to secure a high paying job but admits that passions can correlate with a high earning potential. Furthermore, what is the "good" that comes from a high earning career that cannot come from a mid-earning career, or even that of a low level earning career? I suggest very little difference. My opponent continues his claims by stating that Children shouldn"t be taught to follow their passions because they are not "mature" enough to understand what the world is truly about. It is not our job as parents to strip their passions but to encourage and direct their passions. We encourage their curiosity, develop their critical thinking skills, and hope that they make the right decision. "My sec. argument is that in developing countries there are very few opportunities for hobby industries." Who said following your passion is automatically is aligned with a hobby industry? Many children from a young age understand and then follow that passion in a particular academia or industry etc.. Stating that following your passion lands you in a hobby industry with low income and no career stability is a fallacious statement and should need no further explanation. "Thirdly, this is not tyrannical or unethical in any way. It is simply being realistic. The fact of life is that passions sometimes cannot bring you the success you want." Assumptions made by opponent: Children will not follow their passions if instructed not too; Sacrificing passion would provide a better outcome; There is a market for high income jobs in developing countries. And fails to realize: Children in most developing countries are improperly nourished, denied the right to education, and are vastly illiterate. What he thinks is the most realistic route is actually the least. https://academicexchange.wordpress.com...
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

I strongly believe that in developing countries, as parents we should encourage our children to pursue education and opportunities with the primary goal of a good job instead of 'doing what they love'. My first argument is that children can be very enthusiastic about anything. Indeed, some of our hobbies and interests started when we were kids and we can't really explain why we enjoy them. That is the magic of childhood. However, children should not be taught to put their supposed 'passions' as main priority. The main reason being they are still young and fickle. What seemed awesome today might seem dull and boring the next. They should be allowed to discover but not to actually make passion the main fuel for ambition. My sec. argument is that in developing countries there are very few opportunities for hobby industries. You may be able to live by monetizing your hobby if you live in the America or in the UK, but the fact is in developing countries 'fringe' industries cannot succeed because the market is very small. In Australia, for example, you can be a cleaner and still have a substantial income with time on the side to pursue other things because the economy is good and the minimum wage is high. Sadly, this is not the case in developing countries. Thus, we would tell our kids to focus on a good, high-income job first. This does not mean we want them to become employees their whole life. We would instill business-mindedness in them. But to collect principle to start businesses which monetize their interests you need to have a good paying job first. Thirdly, this is not tyrannical or unethical in any way. It is simply being realistic. The fact of life is that passions sometimes cannot bring you the success you want. The importance of education and a good job is acknowledged even in first world countries like Australia and US because income creates oppurtunities.
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

Short debate with 2000 characters max. The nominated judges are: Wylted, Ragnar, bladerunner060, YYW, whiteflame, lannan13 and Blade-of-Truth. IMPORTANT INFORMATION: In this debate, 'we' is defined as parents of children in DEVELOPING countries, not first world countries. Not US, UK, Germany, Australia, France etc. Countries which come to mind include Turkey, Malaysia, South Africa and indeed many, many others. In these countries, there is a big dilemma on whether young people should aim for job stability or pursue their passion. Please, please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. Do not forfeit rounds. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE. Looking forward to a good debate. Thank you!
It is politically incorrect for Pinocchio to be a Jew

Some Jews are very bad with money, like somebody I can not think up right now, you shan't profile people like that. Look at Israel, there are lots of poor people over there. Speaking of Israel, it is spelled similar to "Italy". Pinocchio is Italian, therefore the Disney film should be banned and censored in all forms. We don't need Jewish character because we could accidently offend someone, we should just be grateful for our abundance of Jewish actors and actresses.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion #1 - Students and Society benefit more, when students are able to attend racially integregated schools. Evidence - Students will feel safer Evidence - Students will feel less isolated Evidence - Students will be less bullied in a more diversed school Affirmative assertion #2 - Courts have the to reduce the effects of Racial Discrimination Evidence - Judges can help balance out racially imbalanced schools Evidence - Students can be given a choice of their own, to choose which ever school they please Evidence - Judges have the power to help improve the racially imbalance rate Affirmative assertion #3 - Schools should not be used as battlegrounds to address inequality and discrimination Evidence - Alot of school had fights due to the racial imbalancement in schools Evidence - Students didnt have the same protection, rather than the certain race that was most popular in that certain school Evidence - The inferior students were being bullied by the superior students, whom were the dominant race in the school
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative assertion #1: Questions about schooling should be left to communities to solve "The whites got angry and started attacking the buses. "They refused to send their children to school "They attacked the federal building and bashed the windows in Negative assertion #2: In 1974 court ordered busing was NOT the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston"s public schools. "There was not enough time for the community"s options to work. "Black parents were also afraid of the violence of desegregation by busing "There was no law saying kids couldn't"t go to school outside their neighborhoods. Negative assertion #3: Race should NOT be used as a basis for school assignment "During the past 20 years, with brown in full force, America"s public schools have been growing more segregated "By the early 90"s support in the federal courts began to expire rapidly "Frustrated both black and white parents, Appealed to federal judges to stop shifting children from school like pieces on a board game
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

- Yes exactly, so children under the age of 18 wouldn't have no choice but to attend school, Well instead of giving parents options of sending their children to a school outside of the community, they can recieve a listings of the schools in the community. - They can be aware of the concerns and share opinions with the courts, the courts have no choice but to infer some ideas into their decisions. - Yes the balance of schools can reduce the fighting rates, because the inequality of races in schools is what builds tension between the dominant and predominant races.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

If they balance out the racial imbalance don't you think that the white parents will still refuse to send their children to school? - No, i think that the white parents would be offended by this, but will then have to face the fact that a child under the age of '18 MUST ATTEND SCHOOL, and they will adapte to this diversity !!!! If they let the parents help debate on school decisions don't you think they'll choose against sending their children to a school were they aren't going to be safe? - Yes, Parents will want to educate their daughter/son in any possible safe way, but im talking about including the parents on SCHOOL COMITTEE MEETINGS, and actually listening to their OPINIONS, CONCERNS, and IDEAS !!!!! Don't you think racially balancing the schools is what's causing the fights? - No, I think the single different races that are imbalanced all these different schools, which is a dominant race 'VICE VERSA' a predominant race, which builds a 'WEAKER LINK' The balancement in schools will definitly be a reducement of BULLYING, FIGHTING, and ALTERCATIONS !!!!!!
women living in the middle east have no rights

My opponent has attempted to change the meaning of the resolution by appealing to the moral definition of "right", as in "right and wrong." This makes sense neither in the way the resolution is stated, nor in the context Pro provides in R1 when he complains about Middle Eastern women's freedom to drive and dress. Pro was obviously arguing in the context of the second definition:"a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."[1]The happiness or comfort of Middle Eastern women is not being debated here. Neither is it being debated that Middle Eastern women are treated morally, justly, or honorably (although my arguments could possibly apply to that as well). The issue being debated here is whether women living in the Middle East have rights, such as driving and dressing as they please. My opponent has all but conceded the debate by not attempting a rebuttal of my argument.Thank you, Pro, for an interesting debate. Thank you, voters, for your time and consideration.--------[1]https://www.google.co.uk...
women living in the middle east have no rights

The title of this debate is based on perspective. The definition of rights: something that is morally correct, just or honourable [1] Arguably some women in the middle east are not happy with their status and feel rather uncomfortable about their position in middle eastern society. [2] That is not morally correct which goes against their rights according to the above definition. [1] https://www.google.co.uk... [2] 'Women were seen as wives, daughters, mothers- not as individuals... I've experienced it myself in Saudi minor royals, Afghan warlords and Iranian clerks: you are invisible, you don't matter, your voice doesn't count, it is embarrassing to treat you seriously.' - Kate Adie in Fighting on the Home Front In conclusion, if you see rights more morally, women don't have these rights.
women living in the middle east have no rights

My opponent's resolution: Women living in the Middle East have no rights.My opponent has provided no evidence to support his resolution. As of now, he has not met his burden of proof. However, to make things easier, I will accept the BoP. If I can show that women living in the Middle East have at least one right, I negate my opponent's resolution.I could argue that they have human rights, but that is not necessary. My opponent has shown in his Round 1 that he is referring to legal rights, so I'll stick with that.Here's my argument in a syllogism:P1: Israel is part of the Middle East.P2: Women in Israel have rights.C: Women in the Middle East have rights.P1: Israel is part of the Middle East.This isn't hard. Israel is part of the Middle East. [1][2][3]P2: Women in Israel have rights.Women in Israel have the "right to equality in employment, education, health, environmental quality, and social welfare."[4] Israel's parliament established a committee to "prevent discrimination, combat violence against women, and promote equality in politics, lifecycle events and education."[5]Here is a woman proudly holding her temporary Israeli driver's license[6] Here is an Israeli woman posing for an Israeli government sponsored photoshoot[7][8] Here is a beach scene in Israel[9] Conclusion: Women in the Middle East have rights. The resolution is negated.------------[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.internetworldstats.com...[3]http://www.teachmideast.org...[4]http://unitedwithisrael.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]http://jerusalicious.blogspot.com...[7]http://www.maxim.com...[8]http://www.jewishpost.com...[9]http://travelingisrael.wordpress.com...;
god is a fart that never happend

Since you insist in using fallacious arguments to explain your position, I ask the reader to consider this when voting. As for your question, the difference between a fart that never happened is that you're already stating that the fart never happened. You already know the condition of existence of this fart and you're trying to compare the sure inexistence of a fart with the probable inexistence of god. You know the fart never happened, you stated it, but you don't know if god never happened. This is my last argument and I actually don't believe in the existence of god, but I don't use fallacious arguments to justify it. I ask the reader to not condone with these kinds of arguments to justify the lack of belief. Please judge the arguments.
god is a fart that never happend

So do you believe that lack of evidence that the earth was spinning around the sun was proof that it didn't happen at the time of Galileu? Do you believe that the lack of evidence for the existence of the Higgs Bosom was evidence that it didn't exist? I ask my fellow reader to not consider my beliefs, which I have chosen not to present here, but to consider that my opponent is using fallacious arguments to uphold his arguments.
god is a fart that never happend

Galileo Galilei had never seen a planet spining around a sun before, but that did not mean there was no truth to it nor that it had never happened. The fact that you've never seen something happening isn't proof that something doesn't happen. If you can't smell a fart, you could run some air tests, or you could ask other people to smell it and have a poll. However, if none of the previous attempts rendered any evidence of the fart, you have just two options left: either the fart happened and you don't have the necessary instruments to measure its presence or e didn't happen. The problem is: you can't prove that a fart actually never happened with a 100% certainty. You can get a pretty good statistical answer, but never a sure answer. So again: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
0.999999999 etc. does not equal 1

Numbers represent abstract ideas, and are connected by logic. However, the physical representation of these numbers is hardly the same as their abstract functions imply. Let us, for example, take the equality of 2/2 = 1. We both know these are equivalent functions, but two halves are not the same as one whole. Furthermore, 2 + 2 = 4. However, one side of this equation denotes two distinct sets, while the other includes them as one set. 0.99999 is irrational, while 1 is a whole number. Something can be 1, a whole entity of itself. However, the only way an irrational number can exist, is from a calculation. For example, pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter. The relevant irrational cannot even be expressed as a fraction or ratio, only as a sum. For example, 1/3 = .3333 and if we have three of them, that “equals” 1, but you have three separate entities, not 1.1/√2 = √2/2. We come to this equality by eliminating the radical in the denominator by multiplying the “unit” of 1/√2 by 1 (in this case, √2/√2), to achieve the equivalent figure using the identity property of multiplication. But, what is √2/√2? Sure, it is treated as 1 for these calculations, but they are not the same thing, as multiplying this improper "number" by 5/5 would not aid in ridding the denominator of the radical. Somehow, only a specific equal number eliminates the radical, which shows that all equivalencies are not the created equal. Therefore, 1 does not equal .99999, even if they are equivalent. Thank you for the debate.
0.999999999 etc. does not equal 1

I will prove (in this round) beyond a shadow of doubt that Pro's resolution is false. Specifically, I will prove that .9999... etc is indeed equal to one.I will prove this in two different ways which Pro will have to logically show is incorrect (i.e that BOTH are incorrect):1)Let's assume that x = .999... From this, we can see that 10x = 9.999... = 9 + xThis yields the equation:10x = 9 + xSolving this equations yields:10x - x = 9 --> 9x = 9 --> x = 9/9 --> x = 1q.e.d.2).999... can be written as an infinite sum:.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...-->.999... = 9 * (1/10¹ + 1/10² + 1/10³ + ...)-->.999... = 9 * ∑(1/10)^i [ from i = 1 to i = ∞]From Wolfram[1], when |r| < 1 (which r = 1/10 is indeed < 1)∑r^i [from i = 1 to i = ∞] = r / (1 - r)This gives:.999... = 9 * (1/10) / (1 - 1/10) = 9 * (1/10) / (10/10 - 1/10) = 9 * (1/10) / ( (10 - 1)/10 ) = 9 * (1/10) / (9/10) = 9 * 1/10 * 10/9 = 1q.e.d.It might be easier for Pro to understand the 2nd bit of Algebra from a nicely formatted PDF file as given by [2][1]http://mathworld.wolfram.com...[2]http://my.cs.utsa.edu...
0.999999999 etc. does not equal 1

This debate is pretty straight forward and has been done before; however, I believe I am correct in asserting that 0.999 repeating does not equal 1.As this is a two round debate, I have an odd rule that must be honored, otherwise it results in automatic loss for Con. In Con's first round, they must state their proof as to why they believe that .99999 equals 1. I am sure we both know what that will look like...Con has the Burden of Proof, as they will be making the positive assertion, and must do so in round 1. I will refute them in Round 2. Con then may attempt to refute my refutation in Round 2.Good luck to whoever accepts this debate, and, please, no trolling.
Jesus is God

1) "If Jesus is not omnipotent (being able to be everywhere at once and knowing all ect. ) than how can he possibly do this. .. " Omnipotent means "all powerful. " Showing that he can do one or two really powerful things, does not show that he can do every powerful thing. 2) "in Revelation 20 he says 'I am the Alpha and the Omega , The first and the last, the begging and the end. '" We need to remember that Jesus is not actually speaking, since the book of Revelation was written off the author's visions, not actual conversations with Jesus. In fact, even according to the author himself, the vision was provided by an Angel, not Jesus or God. 3) "On to my next point I would like to point out the times he was worshiped. " This is an appeal to popularity. The number of times someone is worshiped is no indication on whether or not they actually deserve that worship. After all, from a number's perspective, Snookie has more people "worshiping" her now than Jesus had while he was alive (a truly sad thing). 4) "'He who has seen me has seen the father' So Jesus not only says quite clearly he is divine but he also rebuttals your statement. " Since Jesus says in one instant that we've never "seen his [God's] form," yet in another says "He who has seen me has seen the father," we can only conclude that one of these passages is more figurative and one is more literal. The verse in Exodus is also very obvious. There is not a lot of wiggle room to make it figurative. 18 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory. " 19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. " 21 Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen. " The only logical explination is that either A) the other passages are symbolic and figurative, or B) the bible is being illogical and so we cannot use it as a legitimate source for any of this debate. Summing up, it should be clear that no evidence was given the Jesus IS God, given by the number of time Jesus stated that he wasn't (not refuted, merely pointed out that Jesus said he was aswell), and that if he was literally God, all his disciples would be dead. Thank you,