BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW (This House Would) make all schools private

Education is the great equalizer of life. No matter your race, gender, or social economic class, you will have a education. Private and charter schools demand money upfront from "consumers" and leave the poor behind. Without public education, generational poverty will never be solved and the nation will be become more divide on wealth. As the burden of proof lies solely with the pro side I will rebuttal this round. The main point of the pro side on educational benefits of private schools, is that their reputation must remain sound. This seem odd as public schools have reputation as well. The idea is to attract people to live near the school to gain the property tax dollars. So any benefit from private schools reputation can be matched by charter or public schools. The same goes for the technology. Many public schools do the same thing for the tax dollars that new students bring. All of the points the pro side has listed can be matched by public schools. "The private school will remove a heavy burden from the shoulders of the government, and the government can use it in the country's development" Public schools are paid by state property tax, not federal funds. There is no burden on the federal budget from public schools. "The average wages of all governmental employees will be raised." This cannot be proven and does not make private seem any better. Both examples from the pro side are from countries ethnically and economically nowhere similar to America and cannot be used as a comparison for a action as making all schools private. Also Turkey and Malaysia have the worst income and wealth inequality in the world. Do we really want to be like them? http://fpif.org... http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com...
THW (This House Would) make all schools private

Hi. Thank you for accepting to debate me. Now, I'm going to tell everybody body why all schools should be made private. My points are: 1 Educational point 2 Financial point Before starting with my points, I would like to remind you that you're not allowed to refute now... Refuting is for the third round Educational points: The private schools make more efforts in education to keep its reputation safe.. The private schools are more keen on contacting guardians (Literally parnets) to keep its reputation safe, too.. The private schools try to get the most modernised and technology-based curriculum so that they get more students. Financial points: The private school will remove a heavy burden from the shoulders of the government, and the government can use it in the country's development The average wages of all governmental employees will be raised. To give evidence to all this, we all know that the current president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, immediately after becoming the minister of education, wanted to make the level of education in his country better, so he started that with private schools. WHY? And now we all know the level of education in Turkey. The same thing with the minister of education in Malaysia.... Muhammad Mahateer started making the schools in his country better with private schools.. What about the quality of education in Malaysia? Don't you know that people from all around the world go there for education... You CAN'T refute for NOW. Thank you very much
Who is the King of Fantasy Literature Jrr Tolkien or George rr Martin

However, I will continue with the debate. I have selected C. S. Lewis, writer of the Chronicles of Narnia series. 1. Lewis is better than either Tolkien or Martin, because he can weave allegorical tales that have incredible substance as well. The Narnia series is a 'Christian' cantos, which has biblical and religious references sprinkled throughout it. Despite this, even atheists hail it as one of the great works of fantasy. The Space trilogy also has allegorical areas (particularly Perelandra, which is really an alternate unfolding of the Fall). However Lewis is still able to create a series that is both intellectually stimulating (especially in the realm of ethics and philosophy), and entertaining. 2. Lewis is able to create images of his characters and events using the simplest language. The Narnia series, for instance, is a childrens' series that I was read when I was young. I could understand every word (almost), of what was being described.
Who is the King of Fantasy Literature Jrr Tolkien or George rr Martin

Interesting topic, but I am confused as to the nature of the debate. Would you prefer if I defended Tolkien as being the better of the two writers? Or would you like me to put forth one of, or maybe 2 or all three of- J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter), C.S. Lewis (Narnia, Space Trilogy), or Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game series, Worthing Chronicle) as a challenger (assuming that you consider Card to be fantasy as opposed to Science Fiction).
Should you be allowed to spit in public

I suppose since I have no experience on this site, why not start here, not that this topic serves any educational purpose. Since the con side provides no definitions I'll define spitting as: To Eject saliva forcibly from one's mouth, sometimes as a gesture of contempt or anger. I believe you should be allowed to spit in public under specific circumstances. But to utterly disallow spitting entirely is to pretend as if exceptions don't exist. Moreover does vomiting not somewhat fall in to a similar category, can we fine people who involuntarily regurgitate in public? What about spitting while talking? A unintentional and perhaps uncontrollable means of spitting in public. Also I ask that we disregard the Con's first argument's entirely. Occam's Razor tells us that "Our explanations of things should minimize unsupported assumptions." Since he begins his argument with let's Assume, it is clearly the least desirable explanation.
Historical Truths Can be Discovered

Wow, I may have taken on more than I can handle against a philosopher of science! Let's see.. Defending Historical RelativismThe Problem of Lack of Direct AccessPost Modern RelativismStrong Post Modern Relativism is the view that theory determines the reality. The anti-realist here claims that all observation is theory laden and theories determine reality. But this touches on a reductio ad absurdum, the same as in what Apeiron spoke of for Ontological Constructionism. So I can't defend that here. But Weak Post Modern Relativism on the other hand is the view that the theory determines the observations of reality. For instance a baseball fan and caveman walk into a bar & see a homerun on the TV… one sees a man running for his life and another sees a win. Since these two are in completely different paradigms then we can't expect them to understand each-other. Same holds true for history. Weltanschauung AnalysesThesis one of Weltanschauung is the supposed view that theory-ladenness leads to historical subjectivity. Thesis two says that the theory terminology is in turn theory-dependent. Thesis three says that historical facts are also theory-dependent. These three thesis' clearly support the relativist. Presupposition of NaturalismAnyhow, the whole goal of Apeiron is to prove the resurrection of Christ, but naturalism rules that out and so we can't even expect to know such historical truths like that. Thus ultimately Apeiron's historical realism (the kind he wants) is undercut by the project of naturalism and history. The Problem of Lack of NeutralityHere I've seen no reason to think that Neutrality can be mitigated, even if Apeiron is correct in what he's said, it still doesn't follow that the historian's view of what actually happened is veiled by her linguistic and cultural upbringing. Thus relativists cannot nor should they recognize objectivity in history whatsoever. Critique of Historical RealismSelf-Evident Autonomy of DescriptionThat we're prima facie justified in accepting historical realism is a bit biased in the wrong direction. It is the historian who's biased towards her linguistic upbringing, cultural background and so forth, she can never get past it so there's no reason to demand history as basic.ConclusionApeiron put forth a powerful case but I think he's still got some more work to do, but I'm running out of time!
Historical Truths Can be Discovered

Indeed I've watched how and what Apeiron debates on this site and have been very impressed by his method and his skill in showing the reasonableness of his views. Indeed I think that Apeiron is quite easily one of the top debaters on this site. And I wish I had him as a student in my logic class! I accept my burden of proof and will give my outline below as well in the same format: Defending Historical RelativismThe Problem of Lack of Direct AccessThe Problem of Lack of NeutralityCritique of Historical RealismSelf-Evident Autonomy of Description
Historical Truths Can be Discovered

I believe that historical truths can be known such as if the man Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. Or if what he said could actually be discerned by use of the historical sciences and their methods. Therefore, my burden of proof will be to show that Historical Realism is possible and that Historical Relativism is less plausible. By contrast my opponent's BoP is opposite this, he must show that Historical Relativism is more plausible, and that Historical Realism is impossible. I thank Anaxa for starting this debate in private messages. Here then is the outline of what I'll debate, Critique of Historical Relativism The Problem of Lack of Direct AccessThe Problem of Lack of NeutralityMy defense of Historical Realism is mainly taken from this paper, http://www.jstor.org...Defending Historical RealismSelf-Evident Autonomy of Description
Someone who is socially libertarian but economically lassez-faire should not support Obama.

In my opponent's world, no candidate would ever be supported by Libertarians or any human being. Nobody is 100% a perfect candidate. I support Obama, the candidate. I also disagree with some of Obama's views. That is what this debate is about. Gay issues are important and Clinton has already met with gay groups in the secretary of state's office and Obama pledged to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell recently. He hasn't done much about anything because his candidacy is new. He has not changed his mind though. http://washblade.com... http://www.newser.com... Obama has not changed his mind on foreign policy. He still agrees with me and the Libertarians. http://www.cnn.com... Obama has not changed his mind on Iraq. He still agrees with myself and the Libertarians. Now, you're just resorting to lies. http://news.yahoo.com... Obama does not agree with my economic policy views, but he does agree with other views relating to the Supreme Court that prove far more important. Naziism is a way far reach for this argument. Nazis also gained office with the support of the country, as in our nation, still no naziism. Anyway, I admit my support for Obama is completely justified as a Libertarian, because he agrees with my social views, which are far more important. Indeed, if we are to look at this realistically, as if there were more than one candidate as there is in real life, my only options are among fiscal liberals. I support and agree with Obama because of his foreign policy views, which I very much admire. I advocate Obama's gay equality stances, which are the most important issue to me in any election. I very much agree with Obama's idea of withdrawal from Iraq as well. Indeed, I advocate Obama's candidacy and think it is exactly what this country needs after eight years of destructive Bush years.
Someone who is socially libertarian but economically lassez-faire should not support Obama.

Support means to advocate. You either advocate Obama or you don't. The multiple choice does not read: 1. Who do you advocate? A. Bob Barr B. John McCain C. Barack Obama D. Ralph Nader It reads: 1. Do you advocate Obama? A. Yes B. No The debate is over whether libertarians should support Obama or not. "I am an American who supported, advocated Obama. " This debate is not "No libertarians support Obama" "I do advocate and support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. " That's not what this debate is about. "I do disagree with Obama on cap and trade, gun control, and central planning, but these policies are severely less important to me, personally, than the Iraq War, gay discrimination, the nation's soft power, and the balance of the Supreme Court. " But we all agree on something with someone. The libertarian party has many problems with Obama, and his plans to control the American economy greatly concern them. . http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com... . http://www.capitolhillblue.com... . http://www.upi.com... "However, none of these are leading to a slippery slope of Naziism. " No, but that is how the Nazis came to power. "I do support Obama on Supreme Court nominations, gay equality, foreign engagement, and the ending of the Iraq War. " But real libertarians do not. Gay Equality- Obama has done nothing about it Foreign Engagement- Obama has changed his mind, and plans to stay in Afghanistan (which Libertarians oppose) The ending of the Iraq War- Obama does not intend to end the Iraq War, he intends to drag out the time we stay there and he intends to leave a permanent force behind Supreme Court Judges- the Libertarian Party fears that Obama's new picks will threaten economic rights Again, I remind my opponent that the debate is not over supporting Obama over McCain, the debate is over supporting and advocating Obama despite large, gaping differences in opinion on most fronts. I would like to remind my opponent that he is NOT the Libertarian Party, though he finds himself to be part of it.
Someone who is socially libertarian but economically lassez-faire should not support Obama.

There is an inherent flaw with my opponent's logic: there is not a choice between Obama and nobody while there is simultaneously not a choice between Obama and a more preferable candidate. In my case, I very much did not want McCain to win the election. My reasoning is that Obama and McCain both are fiscally liberal and will both be detrimental to the economic well-being of this country. To use my opponent's metaphor, if my choices are between two berries that could be deadly, the smarter decision is to choose the least lethal berry of the two. Also, the opponent is incredibly idealistic. Few Americans ever find a candidate with whom they agree with all their positions. I am an American who supported, advocated Obama. I very much was vested in his victory. I owned an Obama T-shirt and wore an Obama button. I admit that I do not agree with Obama's fiscal policy, but I also disagree with McCain's fiscal policy. My point is that I disagreed with both's fiscal policy, but also seriously did not want McCain to enact anti-gay equality legislation, continue the failed Bush foreign policy of the silent treatment, continue the Iraq War, or destroy the Supreme Court and the Constitution for upwards of 30 years to come. So while I do not advocate, support all of the policies of Obama, I do advocate and support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. I do disagree with Obama on cap and trade, gun control, and central planning, but these policies are severely less important to me, personally, than the Iraq War, gay discrimination, the nation's soft power, and the balance of the Supreme Court. Besides, the Supreme Court already ruled on gun control so Obama will have little effect on that anyway. Your Nazi point is, frankly, ridiculous. Supporting candidates who you only partially agree with does not lead to Naziism unless, of course, that candidate is a member of the Nazi Party or happens to be a Nazi. Hitler was vegeterian, breathed, and did not enforce gun control, which are all things in which I believe. However, none of these are leading to a slippery slope of Naziism. My conclusoin is this: my opponent now understands that I do not support Obama or McCain on fiscal polcy. Both are liberals. However, I do support Obama on Supreme Court nominations, gay equality, foreign engagement, and the ending of the Iraq War. These points are all VERY important to me. In fact, these issues are more important to me than economic policy. Indeed, they are even more numerous. There is no reason to conclude that economic policy outweighs these four policies, which are extremely important. So while I do not support all of Obama's fiscal policy [or McCains'], I do support Obama, the candidate as a whole for his other policies.
Someone who is socially libertarian but economically lassez-faire should not support Obama.

I contend that supporting Obama is not a choice between McCain or Obama. It is a choice between supporting Obama's actions or opposing them (see below definition). My opponent has conceded that a libertarian would not support Obama's economic policy. My opponent's argument is that libertarians agree with some of Obama's social policies and that libertarians do not agree with McCain. The second argument does not matter in this debate, as I have already pointed out. I would like to argue against my opponent's logic with a metaphor: -A man is walking through the woods. He is a little hungry, and all he can eat is a poisonous herb. It supplies a little nutrition, but it will kill him. However, because it is half healthy, he consumes it. He dies. Alternative: -A man is walking through the woods. He is a little hungry, and all he can eat is a poisonous herb. It supplies a little nutrition, but it will kill him. However, because it will kill him, he moves on and finds something else to eat. Just because one agrees half-way with a politician isn't a reason to support him. support- to advocate . http://dictionary.reference.com... A libertarian would not advocate Obama because of Obama's anti-libertarian policies, including: 1. Cap and Trade 2. Gun Control 3. Central Planning There is no reason to advocate something that directly conflicts with some of your key principles. Such beliefs lead to the rise of the Nazis. The Nationalist-Socialist Party was meant to draw in support from all people because conservatives were nationalist and liberals were socialist. So, there was something everyone could support. However, having something half-way is not enough to advocate.
Someone who is socially libertarian but economically lassez-faire should not support Obama.

I am of course referring to the libertarians. Libertarians typically believe that government should not run the lives of people. They tend to favor liberty and choice as well as economic freedom. They do not favor government expansion. On the other hand, Obama supports: 1. Cap and Trade 2. Gun Control 3. Central Planning Cap and Trade- a government sanctioning businesses and issuing taxes based from their emissions Gun Control- a government sanctioning the use of firearms Central Planning- a government controlling the growth and activities of companies for a purpose I don't see why a libertarian would support Obama. My opponent will present his case, and I will negate it and then present my full case in round 2.
The peter Jackson films are cool

It is not as good as the books, as you said yourself. It does not add any extra elements of enjoyment whatsoever. Sub-stories are for movies that are based off such small books that they don't have enough action. The Hobbit is not one of these books, yet Peter Jackson just uses sub-stories as filler to fill up extra space and thus earn more money. This process of adding extra sub-stories is not cool, it's just totally commercialized. It's been fun debating you. Thank you :-)
The peter Jackson films are cool

Personally, I did not enjoy any of Peter Jackson's movies of recently for many reasons. 1- He did not stick to the book in the 'The Hobbit' series of movies as much as I would have liked him to. The extras he added were not as good as Pro are saying. 2- A lot of his films (The Lovely Bones springs to mind) were boring, lackluster and dreary as hell. His imagery was good, I;ll admit, but other than that, he spoiled what I thought at first was a great book, but I now think of it as an awful movie. 3- I generally don't like the themes that he uses (violence, graphic violence, murder, horror) Your turn.
Swittzerland is a better place to live than the US

1). Switzerland has no inflation, as a matter of fact they have a 0.2% deflation. 2). Switzerland has a unemployment rate of 3.4%, the lowest in the whole world. 3). Switzerland has a fractional Reserve rate of 25%, the highest in the whole world, and currently they are voting on a bill to incease it to 100%. 4). In 2008, when the big banks tried theiir shi t and almost destroyed the economy, the US "fxed" the issue by giving the banks mfree money, Switzerland fixed the issue by arresting the banksters. 5). Switzerland doesn't have a minimum wage, they have a bunch of unions instead.
A Non-Mental Reality Probably Exists

Refuting My OpponentPro states:"Highfalutin jargon defining the spaces between atoms doesn't diminish our relationship with the empirical evidence of solid mechanics."Pro hasn't shown that I am using any type if invalid jargon, and bare-asserts that we have empirical evidence of a non-mental reality without a shred of argumentation. Pro has the burden of proof and he still hasn't lived up to it, so as it stands I could walk away now and still be winning... But what fun would that be?Matter Is MentalMatter reduces to fundamental particles. The fundamental particles only have mathematical properties, as Physicist Max Tegmark explains:"As Physicists, we know that...everything...in our universe is ultimately made up by elementary particles like an electrons and quarks... And what properties does an electron exactly have? It doesn't have the property of cuteness, it doesn't even have a color, a smell, or a texture. The only properties that an electron has... are properties like -1. 1/2, 1. Now we physicists come up with geeky names for these properties like 'electric charge' and 'spin'... But the electron doesn't care what we call these properties, they are just fundamentally mathematical properties; their numbers... To the best of our knowledge the same goes for every other elementary particle that makes up everything in our universe." - Max Tegmark [1] So, if matter reduces to elementary particles, and fundamental particles are mathematical then what does this have to say about whether matter is mental or non-mental? Everything... This is because mathematics is abstract, as mathematician William S. Hatcher points out:"In any case, there are several fundamental points on which most mathematicians would agree regardless of their personal philosophic convictions concerning the nature of mathematics. The first is that mathematics is abstract, and that is consists primarily reasoning with and contemplating abstractions" - William S. Hatcher[2]Now, abstractions are mental by definition as they are in terms of thoughts or ideas[3]. It follows that what we refer to as "matter" is mental. The elementary particles of matter only have mathematical properties, but mathematical properties are conceptual and thus mental. In ConclusionPro's argument fails as he didn't present an argument at all. He just stated that there is evidence of a non-mental reality without actually arguing for it. That is enough to win the debate as I do not have the burden of proof. However, I took it a step further and showed that "matter" reduces to mentality! This blows my opponent's "argument" out of the water.Sources[1] [Video Source][2] The Logical Foundations of Mathematics by William S. Hatcher (page 68)[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.youtube.com...