BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberalism and the Democrat Teachers Unions are destroying public education in America

Ok, that's a very reasonable argument. But i have yet to understand what it is exactly that you think "the liberals" are doing wrong. I personally think that we should invest more money into the education system so that school can have higher standards and afford better teachers. Its a solution void of political parties. Now, i personally think that social standards are bull so let me spend a paragraph ranting about your gender issue. (skip if you like) I will side-track for a second on this subject. Biology litters us with exceptions. When we look at the world genetically we realize that all of our human constructions and borders are hogwash. Some females, complete with a vagina and breasts, have a male karyotype. They are essentially males since they have testes and according to genetic tests show up male, but they look like woman. And why don't we have all genders go to the bathroom together? Because they might molest one another? Well what of gays? We have built a society on the average, but today we are realizing that the fringes of the bell curve exist as well! And they always will! This horrible fact will also hold true with education...this is why no child left behind is bogus as well! The bell curve will always exist! Unfortunately, i feel that you are resting your ideas on opinions with no solid grounding in logic. Or, we can prove creationism wrong and evolution correct, we cant prove patriotism correct. Our country's valor IS up for opinion. A good teacher would neither promulgate american virtue nor degrade our contributions. If you ask me, patriotism is fairy unamerican. America was built on free-thinks and grew with the rugged individual. Now, to wrap up all of my scattered thoughts into one cohesive point: You blame our education system's faults on unions and political parties...all things which we created for good. You see genders as set in stone. You see liberals as bad for our country and conservatives as good. You see patriotism as American and self-criticism as unamerican. Essentially you are scapegoating. Why is our school system failing? Because it is corrupt. Why is it corrupt? Because we are naturally corrupt. Now, please, instead of exchanging meaningless words, tell me, how is the conservative movement as a whole enriching our children's lives? What uccess is it promotion? I see that the liberal party has its faults, but you have yet to tell me why the conservatives are so good. If they arn't, then you are attacking the wrong party still.
Liberalism and the Democrat Teachers Unions are destroying public education in America

Hello Cricket Your points are well taken, and good teachers can be of any persuasion My main point is more general- the UNIONS and the BUREACRACY are the main problem, and they keep dumbing down standards And the AFT, NEA and the rest are like 100% democrats. Their constant attempts at social engineering (for example here in Ca they just passed a bill that will allow boys in girls bathrooms if they "feel" like a girl If you look at the testing, the rigourousness continues to decline, and the test scores go down ,and then they dumb down the tests. Look at the graduation test now for HS - it is like a 6th grade test when I was in school! A total and complete JOKE! and still like 50% of kids cant pass! It is a total complete disaster and continues to get worse There is no discipline either, becuase liberalism is running amuk things are probably much better there in PA that here in CA, but I think that by ANY measureable standards - SATs GREs AP tests and the like, the level of knowledge of kids is declining and rapidly There needs to be a revolution and much tougher standards And PARENTS need to be more involved as well. And one final point, liberals in general propagandize against this great nation and distort history , leaving kids with the impression that we are the bad guys and socialism communism and the like have redeeming value cheers
Liberalism and the Democrat Teachers Unions are destroying public education in America

(skip to bottom if you just want to read my argument.) Yes...two sides are good in politics and such things that do not have solid answers...but see...WE CAN PROVE SCIENCE! And, uh...creationism is totally wrong. It would be similar to your teacher teaching you about things like...uh the earth being flat? Now in your biology class do you want a semester devoted to proofs of the world being flat? I think that America's tax dollars should be paying for our kids to learn REAL science. And no liberal lied to me, i watched the debate. (As painful as it was to see that our goverment is full of people less intellegent than a highschool student.) Do you know how hard it is to get a stem cell from a non-embryo? its like pickign needles from hay-stack. Using embryos makes much, much more sense. But that is a totally different debate. Now i didnt reallly understand your argument...you where telling me that christians are nice people and muslims are scary? Well that sounds a little prejudice to me so i am going to pretend it was never said.. Anyway, i dont want to banter, so i will make my argument very simple: >You propose that Liberals are bad teachers ebcause they go on protests and teach our students about socialism. >Pointing out flaws without offering a solution just yields chaos. >Since you specified Liberal tachers and not, "undevoted teachers," I must asume that you propose we replace them with conservatives. >I believe their are good and bad teachers from all political parties. >As proof, I offer creationists who teach our kids faulty literature in lieu of proven science. (This is not an opinion, evolution is correct and creationism IS wrong.) >I thus concude that liberals are doing usno harm. Bad, undevoted teachers are doing us harm. Bad, undevoted teachers are both liberals and conservative. >So if there are bad liberal teachers and bad conservative teachers, then there is nothing wrong with highering liberal teachers, and liberal teachers are doing our kids no harm. You are stereotyping, similar to waht you did with Christians and Muslims.
Liberalism and the Democrat Teachers Unions are destroying public education in America

You might have some backing in your case, but need i remind you of the horrible group included in the liberal's opposing party--that is the conservative's fundamentalist. I'm from PA, and we unfortunately house a fringe school which is trying to teach creationism. Now while the liberal teacher may be teaching socialism, our conservative friends are teaching completely wrong information! i would rather my kind be void of knowledge in a field than filled with false information. Creationism is historically wrong and just plane degrading to science. I would also like to note our conservative government's act to ban stem cell research. So the liberal may be sopping america's children from learning a few facts they will probably forget anyway, but the conservative is stopping our actually productive scientists from leading the world in scientific discoveries. I would take a Liberal, socialist promulgator over a conservative, creationist, holy-roller any day.
Liberalism and the Democrat Teachers Unions are destroying public education in America

this is so true as to not even be funny the public schools continue to go downhill this rests sqarely on the backs of the NEA and AFT and the liberals who want to teach socialism and moral degeneracy rather than Math Science History Reading and the English Language Geography Computers language and the other things that kids will need to succeed in the world I will be happy to post statistics backing this claim cheers
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the Life at Conception Act.

I accept.Thanks for inviting me to this debate. Should be pretty fun debating someone that takes a genuine interest in debate.Now, I'd like to give everyone the entirety of the bill itself, so we really understand what we are debating: A BILL To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Life at Conception Act'.SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE. To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) Human person; human being.--The terms ``human person' and ``human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being. (2) State.--The term ``State' used in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.I'd also like to ask my opponent why he has a rule against semantics, the study of words, when this debate is really ABOUT semantics...That just doesn't make sense to me, so I propose to amend the rules and take out the semantics one. Thanks again for starting this debate and inviting me, looking forward
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the Life at Conception Act.

This debate is over wheater or not Congress Should pass the Life at Conception Act. What this Bill escentially does is decide that life begins at conception and escentially reverses Row V Wade. Click here for more information. (. http://www.randpaul2016.com...) Rules First Round is acceptance and definitions 2nd Round is for Constructives, no rebuttles 3rd Round is Rubutles 4th Round is Rubtles and Conclusions No Swearing Wikipeadia is not a valid source No Semantics Congress- the national legislative body of the U. S. , consisting of the Senate, or upper house, and the House of Representatives, or lower house, as a continuous institution. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) United States- refuring to the United States of America, all 50 states and territories. Pass shall be refurred to as having being voted on in favor of in the terms of at least 2/3s majority in each house.
Generalist approach > Specialist approach

Is it better to be a specialist in a particular field, or a generalist, that knows alot of things, but lacks the depth in any field? I assume, that being a specialist means having a very narrow scope of practical and background knowledge, which is of no help in everyday life. Plus it's really tough to start something over, when you've dedicated your whole life doing one particular thing. Generalists, on the contrary, have basic knowledge of almost every important sphere of human activity, but in fact they lack the depth in order to be called professionals or specialists. Generalists have the freedom to choose their future vocation, as they have the foundation for any of them. In the contemporary world there are many specialists as well as generalists. But which of these two categories should be dominant? I'm looking forward to listening to your oppinions.
Animal Rights

1. Humans are not designed to eat meat. We have long digestive tracks, which make seating meat poisonous, and we have to cook meat to kill the bacteria most carnivores are immune to. Our canines are tiny and pathetic, and couldn't tear raw meat. We also do not have the predator instinct. If you were hungry, which would you rather eat, some wild strawberries or a rotting carcasses? When was the last time you ran outside, grabbed a rabbit, strangled it, and ate it raw? Eating meat causes a host of diseases such as high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, colon cancer, etc. So all in all, meat is not needed for the human body, and is in fact quite dangerous. http://www.peta.org... 2. Animals can make moral decisions. They gave a monkey a choice of pulling a chain and getting a treat, but they would have to watch another monkey get electrified if they did, but most did not. This proves animals are not purely instinctive as we thought. http://www.wisdomcommons.org... 3. Pigs are smarter than 3 year old children, yet butchering and eating them is not okay. You cannot argue that they will grow up into smarter beings, because it is illegal to kill people with profound mental handicaps who are probably less intelligent than pigs. IQ<20 http://www.unleashed.org.au... 4. Animals can suffer, so why do we inflict pain on them just it eat them? 5. There are no laws that protect food animals but there are "animal cruelty" laws that protect dogs and cats. This is absurd. Anyone who has ever known a dog or cat, like my cat Motzi sitting on my lap right now, will tell you they can suffer, feel joy, surprise, fear,love, etc. they can also recognize people. Many food animals are no different. I am told pigs make great pets. (Except maybe turkeys--those are seriously stupid) try putting your pet in the conditions of factory farms. I await your rebuttal to my points and I may add more
Animal Rights

Okay, I will concede that point. Humans can eat meat, and small amounts are healthy. However, a supplemented vegan diet is much healthier than the cord fed meat diet of most Americans. I think we are getting off topic regarding whether or not meat is healthy then. Plants do not have a central nervous system, so cannot feel pain. Releasing stress chemicals is not the same as feeling pain. My computer can react to my environmental inputs, that doesn't mean it can feel pain. Even so, you have to set up a moral hierarchy. Obviously humans are at the top. If I could save one child or a million cows from a burning building, I would pick the child. Some insects can feel pain, so you should avoid inflicting pain on them but it is okay if it is accidental, as everyone will kill insects in their lifetime. Just because something is natural doesn't make it right. No animals wear clothes, so we should all be nude by your logic? Animals kill and rape each other. Does that make it okay for us to do so? It is impossible to raise animals in such a way as to make a profit and be cruelty-free. Keeping another being captive causes suffering, correct? As does slitting it's throat, and hanging it to bleed? Even to make milk and eggs, the "by-products" male calf's and chicks, have to be killed at birth to keep making a profit. Dog fighting is wrong, right? Then why is meat any different? http://io9.com... My computer can do all of those things, doesn't mean I'll give it rights. None of your sources suggested plants feel pain. My counter argument follows to principles. 1. Plants cannot feel pain, so are not moral agents. Amoebas react to their environment, so do plants. Doesn't mean they can feel pain. As far as we know, a central nervous system is required to feel pain as we know it. Of course, it is possible that rocks can feel pain and scream in agony when we kick them, but that is an assumption we have to make, or I could justify killing everyone on Earth by saying that breathing tortures the air. Of course, this means some animals such as sea stars are not moral agents. You can quote me on this, sea star is vegan. As is anemones, etc. 2. Just because something is natural does not make it okay. We are a species that breaks every natural law. Show me a species with cars, clothes, factories etc. Show me a species that buys all of its food. http://theweek.com... So by your logic because it is "natural" I can kill any human I want? http://www.livescience.com... Ants commit genocide, so it is natural. So what Hitler did was okay? Drinking milk is unnatural. No species drinks another species milk. I seriously doubt that that milk which was made for baby cows is good for adult humans, again, because it is unnatural. You cannot use what is "natural" to justify killing. My arguments is as follows. If you believe animals have a moral worth, that their suffering matters and it is wrong to kick a dog because you feel like it, then that requires you to not eat meat because animals can feel pain. Either you believe animals are rocks or you are a vegan, or you are a hypocrite.
Evolution is true... but the positions are switched (heh heh heh)

Let me point out this will be difficult for me. Devil's advocate was never my strong point. Note every argument here will be something I could easily refute myself, and it will pain me to say some of them. Well here we go... Genral arguments go like this, animals produce unto their own 'kinds.' Now this is presented in this form; a dog will only give birth to a dog. There is also no explanation for the fusion/production of chromosomes. Now we have 23 pairs. Evolution states we (our ancestors) once had a set of 24 pairs. Understanding how reproduction works, how would chromosomes fuse in one individual for one, and even then, how would they reproduce? When two animals with a different number of chromosomes, there is likely to be an odd number. Animals with an odd number of chromosomes are infertile, like ligers and mules. This is what determines kinds. The number of chromosomes.
Evolution is true... but the positions are switched (heh heh heh)

So here's the thing... Generally in school life it is accepted normal to believe in evolution, and pitiful to not. I think that in order to truly believe something, you need to know what it is that others think... what may be against the norm. So here's the thing; I'm going to argue for evolution and you'll be against it... Should be interesting :D Round one: acception & proposal thing Round 2: Discussion of ideas Round 3: Points against oponent So the debate starts... Firstly we have the subject of adaptation; a main piece of evidence. If it can happen on a small scale to make things in a plant or animal better, why not on a larger scale? Each small adaption can contribute to each other, then boom you have two different species, coming from a common ancestor due to an inability to mate with each other. Also, despite gaps in the fossil record (Explained by natural events and changes in the climate resulting in degrading of bones etc) this does not mean that they weren't present ROOR
Evil is a misunderstood and overused concept.

Note that in this debate, I am not defending the position of any of the holy books. Far from it, I am doing the exact opposite. My argument 'Evil' is not a matter of choice, whether you like it or not. Nobody simply 'chooses' to be evil. This brings me back to another debate on morals. We consider acts such as rape and murder 'evil'. However, evil is not an absolute concept either (as I pointed out in the morality debate). If a man raped a five year old girl, we would consider him evil, a natural and logical response. However, this brings us to his MOTIVATION. What MOTIVATES him to do this? Did someone force him to do this? If he was forced, is he still evil? The term evil is used to describe a person with little-to-no morals. I believe that there are only a few generalized motivations: -Sheer stupidity. This applies to people who do such acts out of desire to be evil. Does this make them evil? No, it makes them stupid. The problem is that people often miscomprehend the definition of stupidity. Some people consider 'smart' to be able to count all the elements of the periodic table (I have experienced said fallacy). There is a difference between knowledge, wisdom and intelligence. -Mental illness. No need to elaborate on this. We are all aware of the debates this topic has caused. I have question for my opponent. If an insane man beat up an old lady, would he be evil? Since evil is the absence of morals (according to the holy books) the answer would be yes... -Traumatic experiences. This brings up a highly sensitive topic: Vengeance. For those of you who know the story of Batman, is Bruce Wayne evil for taking vengeance against his parents' killer? Do Batman fans consider him evil? No, they do not. Trauma slightly connects to the previous reason: mental illness. It causes psychological pain that results in justified but unmoral actions. Is this evil? The opponent will refute my arguments as well as write his own, labeled from 1-? He can choose the number of arguments he wishes to make (of course). Thank you In this opening round there shall be no links provided. Links can only be used when citing or disproving the opponent in this debate. The opponent can, however, provide his links for the rebuttal and personal arguments -benko
Goku's spirit bomb is more powerful than Naruto's bijuu bomb (Tailed Beast Ball)

Argument invalid, I understand quite well Goku's destructive Spirit Bomb. As I grew up with DBZ too. I also grew up with Naruto watching the growth recgonizing strength. is you who clearly hiding behind the truth of bijuu bombs potential power. As my bijuu bombs can be combined with planetary, rasen-shurikens and all sorts of bijuu ideas all combining 2, million clones bijuu bombs forming from Kuramas mouth using Ashuras six paths of six mode with the other bijuus. They can become very massive indeed 2, million bijuu bombs all combining in to one absorbing the powers of each. All you got to do is being creative even if the ideas haven't been shown. Been doing my own creative naruto battles and have done ideas no one has though of. Such as shooting a planetary-shurikens bijuu bomb making thousands millions or billions using massive amounts of chakra. Than all of those combing that one real Naruto and Kurama that's me. Now Goku and Naruto blasts each other with the Spirit Bomb and Bijuu Bomb in planetary p-shurikens mode. Wow in my head what an amazing clash between those 2. Spirit bomb depending where it's pointing towards the ground, sky, or just plain old across. Bijuu bomb the really ultra mega one it's pointing towards the ground, sky or just plain across. If either points towards the ground massive destruction, plus the Spirit bomb had made giant craters too. Fine bijuu bomb pointing towards the ground, and spirit bomb pointing towards sky. Naruto is also using the floating technique of the sage of the six paths. Goku in Super Sayian 3 using the Spirit Bomb. Both bombs clash in mid air sky, if the bijuu bomb succeeds it will head right towards Goku with Spirit Bomb. Thus possibly destroying the planet. Alternatively Spirit Bomb is pushing the bijuu bomb towards Naruto and he may get hit. Or both blow up right there. Oh yeah Naruto has the Kunai of Minato's instantly transferring the ultra mega planetary- shurikens bijuu bomb combined with 2 million clones bijuu bombs making it more destructive. Doing that Goku was already tagged by Naruto's clones thus making the ultra mega planetary-shurikens bijuu bomb to hit Goku.
Goku's spirit bomb is more powerful than Naruto's bijuu bomb (Tailed Beast Ball)

Rebuttles "Naruto's bijuu bomb could destroy the Earth if gathering a lot of chakra too"I don't think CON truely understands how powerful the spirit bomb is, I have already said that Goku can draw power from the entire universe, giving it limitless power.Message To VotersThank you all very much for reading this debate, I hope you enjoyed it. My opponent has made numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, inferior arguments and inferior rebuttles. For these reasons, I believe I have one this debate, but that is up to you.