BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Only important subjects should be mandatory and choice of subjects should be at maximum

Here would be my education system: Elementary School: Math (every year) LA + Reading (every year) Science (every year) Middle School: Math (every year) LA + Reading (every year) Science (every year) 1 Semester of Art and Music High School: Math (every year) LA + Reading (every year) Science (every year) 1 Semester of Computer Science and PE
Only important subjects should be mandatory and choice of subjects should be at maximum

I think that important subjects should exist in the system, but only to a certain time. Here is how I see the ideal education system. Primary School ============ No homework. No foreign language course unless you are in a non-english speaking country or in a country where it is highly desirable to know an additional language (like in Canada which has many French speakers and recognizes French as their second official language). 3 subjects at most. Maths should be compulsory and the other subjects should be a choice. Middle School ============ No compulsory subjects. Homework should exist. The student will choose to learn between any 5-12 subjects he wants. The aim is to broaden the students knowledge of different subjects and get rid of any spelling and grammar mistakes he has that remained since primary school. High School ========== A choice of between 3-4 subjects. Homework should exist. The school should pay for an educational adviser to advise the student on what he wants to do at uni. And according to that, advise him what subjects to choose. In my opinion the school systems that match my model the most are the Finnish and British systems. And they do very well, above most of other educational systems in the world. The finish educational system of primary schools doesnt give homework and invests more in classes, including computerized technology and the British system has a good middle school and high school systems that rely on GCSE's and A-Levels. A background about myself. I went through an Israeli educational system which was horrible and looked like that. Primary school ============ All subjects were compulsory. Homework existed. Subjects (I can remember most of them and not all). Hebrew English Maths Biology Torah Art Computer studies Sports Middle School ============ All compulsory. Homework existed. One big coursework. Maths Biology Chemistry Physics Literature Arabic English Arabic history Geography History Torah Sports High School ========== Homework existed. Compulsory subjects: English Literature History Maths (at this level you are classified into 3 tiers from most to least advanced) Civil studies Sports Choice of subjects: If you belonged to the more advanced tiers of maths, those subjects were available to you. Biology Chemistry Computer Science Physics If you belonged to the lowest tier of maths (like me), this is what was available. Geography Art (other schools might have a wider choice of subjects that are not math related such as psychology, sociology, politics, foreign language etc). Another point, I was assessed through a constant assessment. That means 3 tests every week on the material you studied last week. I moved to UK at 11 grade (there are total of 12 grades in the Israeli system and an option to continue to grade 14 if you want to specialize in some subjects) to finish my studies and started with the GCSE's. UK system assesses your progress like in university, which is at the end of year. So who can argue against my ideal educational system that I proposed?
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

1. Morals DebateIn LD you must have a value and a critira. I have both (Sercurity and Protection). While my opponet here has no value. Which means I should win by default but I'll continue for the sake of debating. a. This applies only to drones. Drones kill inocent people and since my definition of targeted killings state it was by a person/ human. Last time I check drones are machines not human beings. b. This is what I do Protection is my critira also. c. I've posted a card by Stephan Wijze stating that there was no alternatives. Thus taking out this criteria. Overview of point 1. My opponet doesn't have a value so he really shouldn't have criterias but I've knocked them out anyways. So Since this debate (LD) is about values and Morals. I win in this cattigory.2. Protectiona. self defense- my opponet tries to make an arguement here, but what about little girl Kattie. Who's father was on the fight from Boston. She would never got to see him again. Lets relate this to you though, say someone went up and shot your kids. You would want them in jail for life or maybe. .. even the death penalty. b. Terrorism- My opponet has agreed with my whole second contention and since my case only has 2 agreeing with one really kills you. His case1st card- my opponet says Targeted Killings don't work while I brought up 2 cards saying they do.2nd arguements- He brings up that Targeted Killings kill inocent people. My friends I've brought up the fact in my Targeted Killings definition that they invlove only people not machines. So this takes out his whole arguement. Summery- In todays debate it boils down to values. My partner has none, I've destroyed his criterians, he agrees with my second contention, and his 2nd contention doesn't even apply to my case.
Self interest is the only drive for all human actions. Selfish is what all of us are.

and why do you do things in order to please God? because you think that it makes you a better person. you think that the gods want you to do so, because you fear them. you fear that they'll punish you if you don't. you believe that you are better off following whatever God your faith lies in. in the end it is all about you and yourself. P.s. why are all gods such vicious cunts is perhaps a question you could ponder upon.
Self interest is the only drive for all human actions. Selfish is what all of us are.

I just had this epiphany about how everything humans do is because of their self interest and because it serves them in some way. selfish is but a trait we cant, and shouldnt have to, amputate out of a human such as ourselves. Everything we do serves us in one twisted way or another. If We help somebody with something as stupid as their homework, We expect gratitude. If we somehow manage to convince ourselves that we dont ask for anything in return, we start looking at ourselves with a strange halo over our heads- "look at how amazing i am, i am such a nice person". Heck, we even donate in order to feel better about ourselves. We dont burst crackers because we're good humans. We burst crackers because we're fun people. We plan revenge, never a murder. Somehow everything we do is utter self interest. and in no way is this penchant cynical. Selfishness is the foundation of all life. it is rather embedded in us. Selfish. that is what we all are. that is how we all are. there is no shame in that. neither is there any glory. it is just how humans work. The debate will go to whoever gives me one good example of a deed that they've done that can not be categorized as under Selfish.
Rush Limbaugh should be fired

When Imus uttered the words ". .. nappy-headed hoes. .. " when refering to a college basketball team (by the way, they were black) I rolled my eyes and was disgusted as many others were. However, I never expected him to loose his job! People yelled "Hate Speech" and "Racism" so as a result Imus was fired. I didn't know how I felt. I was happy that he was disiplined, but when compared to other talk show hosts, was it worth loosing his job? This leads me to my point. Rush Limbaugh should be fired. Telling a black caller to take the bone out of their nose, or stateing that the only reason McNabb is a good football player is because he is black, or asking "Isn't it strange that the majority of mugshots look like Jesse Jackson? " My opponet here has to defend why Rush Limbaugh should not be taken off the air. It is remarkable to me, that this is still just a debate, and not reality. .. .
Rush Limbaugh should be fired

I'll address your statements first. .. "I will concede to #1. He has the support from his listeners. " I've won my first point. "#2, do I really need to go down the line of every racial, sexist, and bigoted statement he has made? Come on. " As your case is contingent upon it, you do. Audience, judges, look. In a real debate, we must judge not on false accusations or wild speculation, we must judge solely on facts and logic. The statements my opponent are making require facts to be brought up. I've addressed all the facts he's brought up and he has not brought up any more. I'll quote my 2nd speech in order to help clarify this point: Over a span of some 30 years in broadcasting he's made two racist comments. Don Imus on the other hand, has made scores of racist, bigoted comments, so I think we must examine the background. Rush has had some things slip, however look at the audience he's appealing to. Jeff Cohen has something to say on this, "That's not an unusual response for a talk radio host playing to an audience of "angry white males. " You see, Rush Limbaugh is appealing to a specific audience by using these comments once every, 15-20 years? This is not grounds to be fired, people say things and let things slip all the time. This is grounds for a slap on the wrist and telling him to stop, which apparently he's kept himself fairly well in check. "3, I guess I can't bring up his illegal drug use, even thoguh that was breaking the law and anyone else would loose their jobs if they were caught with oxycotton. .. " He was addicted to prescription pain killers, which is as illegal as me being addicted to playing soccer. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) So. .. what're we left with? We're looking at what SHOULD happen, and 'because Imus got fired' is not substantial backing for SHOULD. That's about the same level of justification as, "he told me to do it! ". As you stated, "So do you think Imus really deserves what he got? I don't". You don't believe Don Imus should've been fired. By that same logic, Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be fired. Let's recap. My opponent has conceded to my first contention, refuted my second contention with no evidence whatsoever and has made false claims to try and rebut my 3rd contention. Overall, he's done a poor job of proving any statement I've made wrong. He's also agreed that, "This is Rush and I [k]now that the 1 admendment is protecting him. ". He's perfectly within constitutional right, as my opponent has agreed. So we see that there is no reason to fire Rush Limbaugh, in fact, my opponent's only argument for WHY is because, "Don Imus was fired. " Finally, the choice of him being fired mainly comes up to the company he's employed by. If the company allows Rush Limbaugh to continue broadcasting there is no argument for him not. As you can clearly see, his company allows him to continue his work, therefore your argument, as it stands, is inconclusive based off of falsifications and little to no evidence. Judges, it is your job to vote for the right debater.
Rush Limbaugh should be fired

Interesting... 1) Lack of people's support. Rush obviously has that. 2) A history of bigoted comments. Rush does NOT have that, he has only made 3 (allegedly, all I could find info one were the two) over a time span of some 30-40 years in broadcasting. 3) He breaks the law. Rush is perfectly within constitutional right to say what he wants, and is upholding the ideal of equality by expressing his own opinion. Telling him that his opinion is wrong would be contrary to the value of equality. *NOTE, I AM NOT SAYING HATE-CRIMES SHOULD BE LEGAL OR ANYTHING* What I'm saying is, in the United States we are free, and to be truly free you must be able to express your opinion. Rush Limbaugh can have his own opinion, he can be bigoted because that's his RIGHT. If he were to hang a man upon this opinion, that's when we can interject. Until then, he's perfectly fine. ******************************************************************* Ok so I think you either don't know who Rush Limbaugh is, or you're confusing him with some one else. I will concede to #1. He has the support from his listeners. But #2, do I really need to go down the line of every racial, sexist, and bigoted statement he has made? Come on. #3, I guess I can't bring up his illegal drug use, even thoguh that was breaking the law and anyone else would loose their jobs if they were caught with oxycotton... This is Rush and I now that the 1 admendment is protecting him. I am only comparing Imus and that situation to Rush. Just recently I would say the song entitled "Barrack the magic Negro" Would get anyone else on radio fired or at least dislpined...http://www.alternet.org... So do you think Imus really deserves what he got? I don't. But since he is fired and there is nothing we can do, There should be equal punishment across the board. That is my point. And you can not say, honestly, that Rush Limbaugh has no past of offensive statements. I don't care how long ago or how recent his statements are, he should be held to the same standards as Imus. Thats all.
Stimulus Spending

ArgumentsI presented arguments and rebutted Con.The denial that stimulus spending can have a positive effect on an economy is mainly comprised of zero lower bound (ZLB) denial and demand denial. When we see that there is inadequate demand up against the ZLB, SS can effectively stimulate the economy and put idle resources and labor back to work.ConductCon forfeited two rounds, implied I unreasonable.Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...Thanks :D
Stimulus Spending

Rebuttal by sentence.1. SS can damage an economy if it is not applied during a period of economic contraction. However, during such period, if used in conjunction with low interest rates and tax cuts, SS is effective at reviving aggregate demand.2. A bailout is not SS, it's a government loan.3. SS puts millions of people and resources back to work that would otherwise lay dormant.4. The Fed, nor Treasury, hopes to profit off this policy. It's done for macro reasons, not micro.5.
Stimulus Spending

"Stimulus Spending Improves the Economy."Note: I don't personally hold to Keynesianism, MMT, or New Keynesianism.Stimulus Spending: Attempts by governments or government agencies to financially stimulate an economy (myriad monetary or fiscal policies). 1. SS acts as a fiscal multiplier, which enables national income to increase in a significant proportion.a During a recession, there are dormant resources and laborb Spending puts them to usec Benefit exceeds cost 500 characters
e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are better than max fleischer's popeye cartoons.

I must note that my opponent starts the debate by ridiculing a childhood hero of mine, the cartoon Popeye. He calls him an "imp". I demand that he apologise for implying that impishness is a negative quality; if not, he is nothing more than a racist pig, and deserves to be docked points.He then critiques the cartoon Popeye's fashion, which, as a fashion historian (especially interested in the fashion of fictional characters - see my blog: https://fictionalfashionblog.wordpress.com...), makes me howl with laughter. The whiteness of the costume serves to represent the purity and military-formality of the cartoon Popeye, as oppsoed to the juvenile dilletanteism of the comic Popeye. This, in itself, says all one must know about the intellectual merits of each. Bluto is as real a Popeye character as Popeye himself. Bluto is the eternal force of time, pushing against Popeye. Every win over Bluto represents a day overcome. What my opponent does not realise is that the days will never end for Popeye; even if Bluto wins, Popeye will not be there to see. Nietzsche's Eternal Return in its purest. The vain comedy of the comics was surpassed, by far, by the absurdist theatre of the cartoons. The repitition my opponent points out is exactly what makes Fleischer such a genius. Popeye is modeled after Sisyphus. That my opponent is not well-read enough to realise this is unfortunate.As for variety, must I point out that animation allows Popeye to be seen in *motion*? One *experiences* Popeye's every action. One *becomes* Popeye. This cannot happen in the comics, no matter what exotic location is visited. Such first-person experience is infinitely layered. Talk about variety.
e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are better than max fleischer's popeye cartoons.

i had awaited your argument for quite some time. the cartoons are simple minded and weak. perhaps they did prolong popeye's popularity, but they did so in the wrong way. the popeye observed in the cartoons is not the REAL popeye. he may look somewhat like him, but he is a shadowy trickster, an imp who lies to your very face. some subtle differences can be observed, such as how the comic popeye has a black, red, and blue shirt, and the cartoon popeye wears nothing but white. the comic popeye is a redhead, the cartoon popeye is bald. oh, yes, and did i mention how the comic popeye only ONCE beat up bluto? it's true. in the great epic "the eighth sea," bluto appears once for a grand brawl, never appearing again, anywhere. in a sense, segar is at fault for creating bluto, since he would eventually ruin popeye culture. bluto is not a REAL popeye character. REAL characters are wimpy, olive oyl, castor oyl, cole oyl, nana oyl, the sea hag, geezil, toar, pappy, king blozo, oscar, the goon, and, of course, popeye himself. but the list ends there, because bluto is and was only intended to be a small character- a man who came once and never came after that. the strips have REAL humor. wimpy bamboozles geezil, he cons rough house out of hamburgers, popeye fights in the boxing ring, talks of politics in nazilia, and aids castor oyl on his many cases. none of these themes, might i remind you, occur anywhere in the cartoons. the cartoons always follow a simple, stupid formula. popeye and olive oyl, bluto takes olive, popeye beats bluto up, popeye and olive together again. the strips, ha! they have lots of variety. popeye goes to africa, out west, to unknown island nations, to nazilia, and founds his own country(twice!) you cannot compare a thing made of pure genius, such as the strips, to a thing made of rubbish, such as the cartoons. i await your following argument.
e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are better than max fleischer's popeye cartoons.

1. Bluto.Bluto is the most recognisable Popeyes character besides Popeyes himself; repetition is a tool of memory.2. Longevity That we are debating this at all means that the legend of Popeye is being prolonged; this would not have happened had the cartoons not been made. Therefore, the cartoons are responsible for the survival of the comics, and are thus at least equal in worth to them. 3. ConsciousnessThe moving nature of the cartoons allows one to get lost in the action; one's consciousness is filled, at all moments, with Popeye. Thus, Popeye is granted full reality in the mind's eye. Compare to the comics, which are perhaps Popeye at 50% or 60% reality. 4. Bluto.Repetition will strengthen point 1.
e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are better than max fleischer's popeye cartoons.

e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are the REAL popeye. they show the one eyed spinach eater in all his glory. the cartoons by max fleischer, however, are weak and stupid. in these, popeye does nothing except beat up bluto. in the comic strips, popeye has a wide variety of opponents, including toar, tork, jabbo, the sea hag, jack snork, mr. chizzleflint, clint gore, and general blozo, as well as an assortment of nameless brutes who pop up for no reason. this is a wide variety of villians who beat bluto a thousand to one. i am arguing that the comic strips are better. you are arguing that the cartoons are better. good luck!
e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are better than max fleischer's popeye cartoons.

My opponent tries to whitespain the notion of "racial slurs". I, as a mixed-race individual, have to say that I find this repulsive. He insults Popeye using a slur, and has the gall to try and brush it aside.What other time in history involved a group being labeled as "deceivers" and "tricksters"? That's right. 6 Million.Vote Con if you do not stand for bigotry. I would also like to inform my opponent that he is openly insulting those who died during World War Two. He is spitting on their sacrifices, their lives, their graves. Disgusting. I object to his accusation of racism; he is not Asian, as I am, and therefore does not have the authority to brand Scrap the Japs racist. In fact, Scrap the Japs is *anti-racist* - it holds the dirty japs to the same standard as we hold the (((rats))) and other inferiors. They are given no special treatment. My opponent, directly after bringing up how Cartoon Popeye deals with WAR and RACISM, two of the MOST mature topics imaginable, calls Cartoon Popeye juvenile. The contradixion is obvious. He criticises VETERANS because they are violent, yet PRAISES the Comic Popeye for being VICIOUS. I must inform him, VICIOUSNESS IS NOT A VITURE. Defend your point, fool.Cartoon Popeye is based on centuries of European philosophy. That my opponent is unaware of this speaks to the fact that he has no legitimacy and cannot proclaim who the "real Popeye" is.
e.c. segar's popeye comic strips are better than max fleischer's popeye cartoons.

wow! you made it just in the nick of time! i was planning on making a second one but now i don't have to. sir, i wish to inform you that "imp" is by no means a racial slur. it may be an insult, yes, but not related to race. by the use of the word imp i imply to some synonyms, such as "deceiver" and "trickster". i think it describes the cartoon popeye to a t. so you're a military lover, eh? i understand that, since you call the deciever a "childhood hero" and the cartoons were made during world war two, when america thought that the military was something good. HAH! good? it's killing! death! men turn into beasts when war breaks out. voters, i now call your attention to two popeye cartoons from this era, one called "scrap the japs" and another called "you're a sap, mr. jap." these cartoons show the cartoon popeye at his racist worst, beating up asian men without a sense of morality or decency in his heart. you can observe these on youtube, voters, if you don't believe me. i assert that the comic strips are by no means "juvenile." they deal with contemporary (at that time) subjects, and serve as political commentary for the twenties. consider king blozo's struggles with prohibition, the struggles of nazilian and popilanian farmers, the difficulty of being a restaurant man, political debates (between popeye and roughhouse), poverty, wall street, and education, among other things. in the cartoons, the fake popeye goes roller skating, runs an amusement park sideshow booth, and goes on a roller coaster. i, for one, would call that juvenile. let's go back to the popeye/bluto conflict. on the one hand, popeye appears like a wimp, because bluto is oftentimes able to knock him out with one punch. on the other, bluto appears like a wimp, because popeye is able to knock him out with one punch. would you call these men formidable adversaries? in the comic strip, pluto jumps on popeye's back, wraps him around a mast, and throws him off the ship. in fact, popeye and bluto fight so well that their clothes are almost torn off. the action lasts for over ten six-panel dailies. do they fight like that in the cartoons? no, the action is contained in two minutes. you do not need to see popeye in animation to observe his fists. segar uses so many motion lines that popeye looks like a whirling demon. i don't think popeye was modeled after anyone, i think that he is an original character, sprung from segar's own mind.