BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The problem with the world is the absence of leadership.

Thank you for allowing me to debate this topic with you today. Now, I'd like to start off by addressing your claim about how mass murder equals bad leadership. When Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan in World War II, we responded by dropping nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in revenge. According to CNN, over 260,000 Japanese citizens were killed including innocent men, women, and children. Yet today, President Harry Truman (the man who agreed to drop the atomic bombs on Japan) is praised for his decision. Why? Because his other option would have been to invade Japan, which would have extended the war and caused more death. So yes, the use of the atomic bombs was horrific, but it was necessary. It does not make Truman a 'bad' individual and using lethal strategies is not always a negative action to take. You then say leadership must have morals and ethics. I agree, however, not all morality is the same. In Nazi Germany, common morality did not oppose Hitler's actions. Yes, Hitler was a horrible person based on OUR standard of morality, but according to the morality of his time where he was from, the people there accepted Hitler because their sense of morality was different from ours. Hitler hated the Jews because Jewish-owned banks lead to the fall of Germany in World War I. He took out his anger on every Jewish individual. You may see that as wrong, however, the morality in Germany at the time generally did not condemn this. Ethics and morality may not be enough to stop or prevent what you consider bad leadership. Goof leadership may sound like a positive thing, but give a good person power or authority and watch it corrupt them. If they do not fall into corruption, someone who succeeds them will. Take the US government for example. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were generally honest, not corrupt leaders. But look at American politics today. You can't deny that our government is corrupt and that our politicians lie whether for votes or to stay in power. So good leadership and inspiring new leaders does sound like a positive thing, corruption is always one step behind. What I mean to say is we don't need new leaders. The first argument about killing is null and void, considering Truman's decision to bomb Japan involved killing Japanese citizens. By your definition, Truman was a bad leader, although if you consider that this was the best path he could have taken, you realize that he wasn't so bad after all. There are some exceptions, like the Nazis in World War II, however, ethics and moral vary from place to place. We can't expect everyone to adopt our morality and looking at the actions of others while blinded by our own ethical values is not the best way to observe leadership. Leadership only leads to corruption anyway; there can never be true freedom unless everyone is viewed as completely equal and nobody is viewed as a high leader. So no, the problem with the world is not the absence of leadership. The problem today is the abundance of it.
The problem with the world is the absence of leadership.

does bad leadership end with countries and places being destroyed. pol pot he destroyed his country and he killed millions of people. he did so without remorse. leadership needs to have morals and ethics without it no humanity will remain, humanity needs to be the center of all leadership, or else we will have another Adolf Hitler, who was a good speaker and good and convincing but had bad morals. does the world need good leadership before it runs its self into the ground answer yes. with out leadership humanity will have nothing left but to destroy what we have left.
Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending

Here is a graph of the United States Federal Government's total spending for the year 2015 (1). s://media. nationalpriorities. org. .. ; alt="" width="798" height="728" />A. The People"Social security, unemployment and labor" include food stamps and welfare. About 35.4% of all Americans are on welfare. The population of the United States is 318.9 million (3), making the amount of people on welfare, in the United States, 112.89 million people. Furthermore, there are 47 million Americans on food stamps (4). So, there are about 112.89 million people on welfare, and 47 million on food stamps. B. The CostsThe United States spends about $131.9 billion on welfare (not including food stamps) (5). They also spend about $76.6 billion on food stamps (6). 47.8% of all food stamp recipients are working (7), and 56% of welfare recipients are working (8). That is $36,614,800,000 of US government money going to WORKING people who receive food stamps, and $73,864,000,000 of USFG money goes to WORKING welfare recipients. C. Minimum WageRaising minimum wage would decrease the amount of working recipients of welfare and food stamps. This would greatly decrease the amount of money spent in the USFG. Thank you for reading. Sources(1) . https://www.nationalpriorities.org... (2) . http://economyincrisis.org... (3) . http://www.census.gov... (4) . https://www.washingtonpost.com... (5) . http://www.statisticbrain.com... (6) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (7) . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (8) . http://blogs.wsj.com... (9)
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

-were already so much in debt we can pay current retirees and thoose going to retire in the next 5 years, then everyone after that is transferred to private accounts and then can work on our debt -I don care about after WW2, the government should tax no more that 25% on anyone beacuse anything above that is ridiculous -ONLY A FRACTION OF THERE INCOME-varying from state to state the top 1% pay around $4 out of every $10 you and other "pay their fare share so we can get free stuff" people think the government is entitled to over half of some peoples earnings, which is absurd. -I gave you an idea that made perfect sense, one number that is incorrect, a bunch of othe correct numbers that fully reconcile with reality
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

even if you transfered the money to a private account, you won't have enough to pay for what was promised. that's because what people paid into it was spent long ago and the only way that's currently available is to have younger generations pay into it to make up for it. i get that we can switch the program to private citizens, but we still need a way to pay for current and near retirees. you're argument doesn't address this. also, your number for how much we have in money at best is how much paper money is in circulation. stock companies have tens of trillions in people's wealth. the top one percent pays almost a trillion a year in taxes. the budget itself is four trillion an that is taking only a fraction of people's money in taxes. the point is there's plenty of money out there. in fact, after WWII the top rates in taxes were much higher than we have niow. that's because they understood that when you spend money, you have to pay for it somehow. and if you can't cut spending you have to increase taxes. so basically you gave an idea that didn't make sense, and numbers that dont add up or reconcile with reality.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

Transfer it to private accounts, so it can go down right now. It is not immoral because the government is more corrupt than the private sector and the private sector almost always delivers the better product. I do not see how this is immoral or irresponsible, it's is simply a transfer of who's responsible. And social security and other things of the sort that the government provides with tax money shouldn't be mandatory, and this gives people the option to opt out. You want numbers, fine, my numbers will be so good your numbers will start a new religion that worships my numbers- Americas current debt-19 trillion by the end of 2016 Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare(all things we can privatize)are responsible for 83% of the projected increase in spending over the next decade. 26.3 trillion-expected debt in 2026 Budget Deficit-In the trillions by at least 2022 And you think we can just raise taxes and the government can get 1 trillion dollars in taxes, no they can't. Why not? Because there are only 1.46trillion US dollars in existence( including bills that aren't $1, coins, and non physical money) So if you just raised taxes to pay for your excessive spending no one would have any money after less than two years. We need to cut spending and work on not having more money in debt than money that exists, You didn't source your numbers I did- federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm dailysignal.com/2016/02/02/the-us-debt-just-exceeded-19-trillion-heres-how-we-got-here/ usgovernmentdebt.us
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

even if you privatize social security and medicare, you still have to pay for it for current retirees and those nearing retirement. that would mean spending can't go down at the moment, your plan would only work in the future. and that's not even arguing that it's irresponsible to think people can invest their own money or somehow they'll get affordable healthcare without the government being involved. it's would be immoral and irresponsible to not pay for current retirees and close ones thus proving my resolution. it's easy to say cut unnecessary spending. it's another thing to show it in the numbers. the fact that you haven't shown any numbers makes me think you dont know much about the budget or spending.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

Nothing is inevitable, Marxists say communism is inevitable, but it's not, nothing in life is inevitable except death, raising taxes is choice made by the government so it's not inevitable. It is not responsible, responsibility would be not getting into debt and not spending excess money. Here's how to lower spending and even lower taxes- Fully Privatize social security and health care, and make massive cuts to military spending, and cut unnessecary programs, and lower spending on nessecary ones. Then we can pay off our debt and have a balanced budget without raising taxes, wasn't very hard was it?
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

raising federal taxes will be inevitable and be the most responsible thing to do the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point. if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut. tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.
This House Would Make All Parents Attend Parenting Classes

Thank you for accepting. I will be arguing that parents should attend parenting classes. Parents are the primary role models for children especially during those critical ages when they are growing up. The problem is that parents are frequently unprepared to be the main 'teachers' for children. Most often that not, they still practice their old lifestyles since before they had children, like spending too much time away from home, abusing their children with negative remarks or beatings over small issues and so on. The problem is that most parents do not know what are the best ways to bring up a child. Only with the advancement of research, psychologists are able to understand better how to use words powerfully to motivate or reprimand children, or when to severely punish a child and when to let them go scot free. We all experience this first hand when we think back of our childhood years and certain things our parents did which we will never agree on. This is especially evident when countless motivational speakers remind us that our childhood upbringing is flawed because of the lack of our parents' knowledge on how to educate a child, and this affects us until adulthood. Research shows that problematic behaviour among adults like profanity, hypersexuality and so on are because of poor upbringing by parents and because of the bad environment at home which is primarily shaped by the parents. For these reasons, Pro would strongly advocate governments and community leaders to make parenting classes a must for at least one of the parents, if not both. These programs can be held over one day. No matter how it is done, parenting classes simply must be put in high importance if we truly want to develop a safe and productive society. The family unit is the first stage of a healthy society. Today, we have courses for soon to be teachers, employees and so on to teach them the soft skills and non-tech skills. Why not do the same for prospective parents as well? :)
This House Would Make All Parents Attend Parenting Classes

The proposition is being very condescending when they say that parents will not be prepared once they have children. I believe, that, especially in our technological age, that adults always make plans for their future, and within that plan, will be the family management. It is a known fact, that raising a child is very costly, especially for education, and we recognise that. But my faith in the society does not end there, I know, that once two people decide to have children, they've come up with a solution to their difficulties, especially financially, if not perfectly, but sufficiently. The proposition also felt that parents are not giving enough effort in raising children, and only with mandatory parenting classes will parents put in effort in raising a child. I thought that this was unfair as the early childhood especially babyhood is extremely challenging. Sleep depravation due to the baby's needs, constant worry for a growing child due to harms out there, and I can list out many more but I believe that the proposition can reminisce his growing up experience. When the proposition said that parents, especially those with Generation Z children do not now how to raise their children. I thought this was again, extremely judgmental. You can't seriously believe that, especially with the fact, that for every generation from the start of humanity will always raise a new generation, the children. The proposition is also very misguided that the basic parenting skills aren't applicable for new generations. This is extremely untrue! The true meaning behind a generation, is the type of exposure that they have, for example, Generation Y is heavily exposed to electronics and the internet, creating a new kind of generation separate from those before. If you're to say that an future technological advancements will mutate this "GenerationZ" in such that they will not be able to receive parenting the normal way, then, and only then, will I accept this motion
This House Would Make All Parents Attend Parenting Classes

I shall go straight to rebuttals. My opponent says that accidental parents are unprepared. This goes without saying. My opponent then says that when two mature adults decide to have kids, the preparation will always be there. This is an assumption in itself. Even if two adults do get themselves prepared when the mother is pregnant, how can we be sure that preparation is adequate? As I mentioned in the previous round, it is frequently a lack of knowledge or the feeling that they already have enough knowledge that causes shortcomings in parents' upbringing of children. There needs to be some kind of curriculum parents can have access to to, in the very least, trigger their awareness on how much more they need to learn if it is truly in their best interest to create a loving, healthy family unit. My opponent then makes a remark on how children are blessings and a treasure that needs to be discovered. To me, just because something is a blessing, even from God himself, doesn't mean we shouldn't put effort into maximising its potential. If anything, we should put even more effort. My opponent mentions that young parents can ask their own parents. However, the generation gap makes it almost impossible for our elders to best comprehend how to bring up Generation Z, let alone fully understand their needs. My opponent's point about fees is to me, not an issue. Even if we are to assume potential costs are high, it is worth it when children are brought up in the best way. Not only will they become well-mannered people, but their good character which stems from their upbringing will benefit them in making good choices regarding their career, their health, who they mix with etc. Yes, of course, there is no guarantee. We can only do so much, but making sure parents are given this guidance from reliable and specialised sources is a must, because this is an investment on human capital, not only to the parents but also to the children. Investing in a person's mind pays off.
This House Would Make All Parents Attend Parenting Classes

Thank you proposition. On the opposition bench, I accept that parents are seen as the most important figures in the formative years of children. However, when the proposition brought up the issue of the frequency of unprepared parents, one can only assume that the proposition is implying of the cases of "accidental parents". I believe, that when two mature adults decide to have kids, the preparation will always be there, however incomplete it may be. Highlighting on the remark made by the proposition, that adults with kids usually practice their old lifestyles during their bachelor days, I thought that the proposition have made a scathing remark to all parents out there. Being parents, having children, are blessings. And to learn and understand them are the treasure that need to be found. I am not saying that they shouldn't get help from others, because being first time parents are not easy without guidance. I believe that forcing upon new parents to attend parenting classes will violate their sense of freedom and will. For I believe, that parents, especially new parents, should have the rights to the options out there in getting advice for parenting. Sticking to the status quo itself, anyone can go to parenting classes on their own volition. if, they can afford such classes. As the proposition did not highlight, as of how this enforcement will be, and if any subsidies are provided, we must assume that the money for these classes must come out of the parents pocket themselves. Being parents to a baby is not easy. It not only costs you your sleep and emotions, but a lot of money with it. Yes, adults within the upper crust of the society may be able to attend these classes, but as the proposition is imposing that all parents must attend parenting classes, people in the bottom half of the society need to fork out much needed money. Furthermore, as I've mentioned above, the status quo is fine as it is. Young parents are able to refer to their parents as a choice.
Should probable cause be used in U.S. schools rather than reasonable suspicion on student searches

I agree with Pro's definitions of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion, but I request him to allow me to use binding case law to further define these terms.This in mind, I'll begin my constructive.1) The reasonable suspicion standard is deemed to be consititutional.In the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio (392. U.S. 1, 1968), a police officer noticed two strangers outside of a store, patroling it. A third man aproached, and the three began speaking to each other quitely, refering back to the store. This type of activity is known as "casing" a store, or preparing to rob it, so the officer detained the three individuals and searched them. He found two revolvers in two of the individuals overcoat, and promptly arrested them. He had no search warrant. The court found that the 4th ammendment "protects people, not places," and thus it was irrelevant that they were out on a public street. In the same way, it would be irrelevant whether or not an individual that is frisked would be in school. The court also found that this detainment and search (this stop and frisk) was completely constitutional, as the police officer reasonably suspected the individuals were preparing to commit a crime, and that this suspicion was based on "articuable facts rather than an unarticable hunch."This shows that the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable suspicion is the burden when it comes to stop and frisks, and that location is irrelevant when considering constitutionality.Feel free to read more about Terry v. Ohio here (1).2) Students are not given immunity.There is no case law binding that prevents this same reasonable suspicion standard being used on students, as a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. To quote from New Jersey v. T.L.O. (469 U.S. 325 (1985)):"Under the above standard, the search in this case was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. First, the initial search for cigarettes was reasonable. The report to the Assistant Vice Principal that respondent had been smoking warranted a reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse, and thus the search was justified despite the fact that the cigarettes, if found, would constitute "mere evidence" of a violation of the no-smoking rule. Second, the discovery of the rolling papers then gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that respondent was carrying marihuana as well as cigarettes in her purse, and this suspicion justified the further exploration that turned up more evidence of drug-related activitiespo (2)."Reasonable suspicion is the standard used on non-student searches and student searches alike, and neither violates the individual's 4th ammendment rights.Based on these Supreme Court cases, I hold that reasonable suspicion is constitutional, and this standard is and should be applied to all individuals, and that no one should be immune from this law, as Pro would have you believe.Sources:(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu...(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu...