BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Chinese Government is a Terrorist Cell

--- "There are no groups of thugs roaming around China trying to take over, there isn't a gun pointed at the people's head. The Chinese people are happy because government makes their lives simple. There are no mass killings in modern day China and the government is not a terrorist organization." --- How can you argue that China is not in a state of rebellion against their dictators when they have to be threatened with violence to fund them? The first requirement for asserting whether a citizen prefers Dictator Hu Jintao, is that the citizen gets to choose whether or not Hu Jintao bosses him around in the first place. Eg you cannot force me to eat only hamburgers, and then say that I love hamburgers. Of course I love whatever prevents me from starving to death. When Hu Jintao forces Chinese citizens to give him money, he eliminates the element of choice. Of course Chinese citizens are happy about government programs, because they don't get to choose whether or not to give up their money. The Chinese Government is always the best that it can be. In order to determine whether or not Chinese citizens are truly happy about their government, they must be allowed to fund it voluntarily or at least through the facade of representative democracy. In terms of the fear factor regarding my label of "terrorist organization", this is my argument: The most important goal of the Chinese Government is to maximize revenue through the threat of violence, otherwise it cannot achieve any of its other goals. It would be counter-productive for the Chinese Government to impose conditions under which large numbers of citizens are inspired to rebel. Fear of coercion is only necessary as a means of maximizing returns. 99.9% of Chinese citizens might be completely overjoyed about their daily lives, but absolutely terrified whenever they have to file their tax returns, knowing that one mistake could land them in a hard labour camp or worse. If just one peaceful Chinese citizen is terrifed of paying their taxes, the Chinese Government fits the definition of a terrorist_organization; they are an organization of individuals who use the threat of violence to extract property from a peaceful person.
The Chinese Government is a Terrorist Cell

I would like to note that my opponent has failed to refute any of my points directly. Your whole argument is based around you making China sound like its in an open state of rebellion or that the people are being savagely repressed when this is not the case. In fact China is one of the happiest countries on earth based on the Happy Planet Index. In 2009 China ranked 20th out of 143 with a high score of 57.1 [http://en.wikipedia.org...] and the Chinese government has continuously said their people's happiness is one of their highest priorities as demonstrated in this article, [http://articles.latimes.com...] the government monitors the people's happiness very closely. There are no groups of thugs roaming around China trying to take over, there isn't a gun pointed at the people's head. The Chinese people are happy because government makes their lives simple. There are no mass killings in modern day China and the government is not a terrorist organization. My opponent really has no argument. His anarchist tirade does nothing to support his point except for throw out a bag of speculative "what-ifs". The citizens in China aren't "subjugated". There are over a billion Chinese, if they really wanted to revolt they could. Arguments about weapons and taxes mean nothing in this debate. You are debating that the Chinese government is a terrorist cell which I've already shown to be false. You are clouded by your anarchist bias.
The Chinese Government is a Terrorist Cell

Fine. It is not a terrorist "cell". Allow me to get used to the level of hair-splitting on this site - which is probably a good thing. If I can rephrase that, it would be: "The Chinese Government is a Terrorist_Organization". You said the following: --- "Also you cannot join taxation without representation to theft and armed robbery and kidnapping. Every nation on earth requires you to pay taxes and if you don't you'll be arrested... probably by a police officer who in most countries will carry a gun. Tax evasion in a crime everywhere not just in China. I fail to see the argument. Many places on earth don't have representation for taxation but that doesn't mean they partake in terrorism it just means people can't vote on tax rates." --- The fact that every nation on Earth requires you to pay taxes is irrelevant. Those "nations" without representative democracies (I would argue this doesn't matter) are simply terrorist_organizations in disguise. In China, only one organization of individuals is recognized as The Chinese Government, but it is probable that many more organizations of individuals want to be The Chinese Government. Who wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of taxation without representation? So what makes this one organization out of millions so special that it gets to be recognized as The Chinese Government? The only consistent characteristic is overwhelming force; one particular organization has more guns than any other organization within the geographical region of "China". That is why the Communist Party gets to be called the Chinese Government and the largest Chinese triad gang in China does not.... yet. The moment the largest Chinese triad gang in China accumulates more guns than the Communist Party, is the moment they get to be The Chinese Government because of overwhelming force. You are willing to say that people who don't have representation for taxation are not victims of terrorism. So it seems you also believe that if the Chinese Government was ruled by the Triad Gangsters Party and subjected "its citizens" to taxation without representation, those citizens are not victims of terrorism. I'm sure you agree that a Chinese triad gang which robs and kidnaps shopkeepers that don't hand over a percentage of their profits, is terrorizing the local population through their extortion racket. Yet The Chinese Government is just a gang of thugs that terrorizes peaceful people through its superior and more dangerous extortion racket.
The Chinese Government is a Terrorist Cell

This debate is so ridiculous that I have to take it in order to clarify...Definitions: terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]tax - A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions [www.dictionary.com]terrorist - A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims [Google Dictionary] government - The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed [www.dictionary.com]According to the definition of a "terrorist cell" it is a group of terrorists consisting of 3-5 members. The Chinese government employs thousands upon thousands of people. Last year the Chinese recruited 16,000 new people to work in government through the Civil Service Exam [http://www.chinatoday.com...]. So based solely on the definition the Chinese government cannot be classified as a "terrorist cell". Also you cannot join taxation without representation to theft and armed robbery and kidnapping. Every nation on earth requires you to pay taxes and if you don't you'll be arrested... probably by a police officer who in most countries will carry a gun. Tax evasion in a crime everywhere not just in China. I fail to see the argument. Many places on earth don't have representation for taxation but that doesn't mean they partake in terrorism it just means people can't vote on tax rates. This debate was founded out of a half baked rant that doesn't even make logical sense nor does it pose any valid points to the argument laid out. Resolved: The Chinese government is not a terrorist cell. Any other arguments you throw out now might try to prove that the Chinese government might not be the best government but you can't possibly call them a terrorist cell. Thank you.
The Chinese Government is a Terrorist Cell

Taxation without representation (ie a representative democracy) is theft, because without a doubt the alternative way of deciding who gets to run the government is by using violence. That is, whichever group within a society has the most guns, eg Al Qaeda, gets to be the government (I would also argue that whichever group with the most guns to gets to host elections for "democratic governments", but that is another debate: http://www.debate.org...). If taxation without representation is theft, then it is also armed robbery and kidnapping. If a Chinese citizen does not pay money to the extortion racket called the Chinese Government, then he will be abducted at gun point and eventually herded into a raping pen commonly known as a "third-world-prison".
The Existence of God

My opponent has forefeited the final round, so I will present my concluding remarks. In framing the debate, my opponent accepted the burden of proof, claiming that she would "provide... specific proof for the disproof of a god". My opponent then proceded to offer arguments against a specific God, each of which I provided a rebuttal to. Since my opponent did not contest any of these rebuttals, none of my opponent's arguments succeed in disproving a God. I thank my opponent for her time, but she was unable to support her contention that the non-existence of god can be proven.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive.

When you say " when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter. " that is just the thing. Freire can not possibly know every student he encounters is so called 'ignorant' nor can he determine that every student is miserable in which the way that they are taught. Men are not born with the knowledge of the world. They don't know math or science or history or even religion. All of these things must be taught in a classroom. What most people are forgetting about The Banking Concept is that while in the classroom the teacher knows all and teaches all the students the crucial facts and life lessons they need to know, but while it is their responsibility to take what they are taught inside the classroom and apply it on the outside in the real world. No one is saying that for the rest of their lives they need to be pushed over and obey direct orders but in order for them to be intelligent individuals they must learn the fundamentals of school.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive.

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are lesser? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive.

The banking concept is not oppressive because it is simply individuals who are trained to teach lesser minds such as students and guide them into the world. Students don't know everything and that is why The Banking Concept is a good concept because students need to be taught and molded into functioning members of society and that could not possibly be done without being taught and molded in a classroom by professionals. "Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students."
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive.

The Banking Concept of Education is fueled by the idea that the students know nothing, and the teacher must deposit information into them. Paolo Freire believed that "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." Freire goes on to state "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. " Who is to say that the students canvas is blank? they have lived, and experienced things as humans that they can offer, and draw from to better facilitate the use of information being taught. Freire takes takes value in the mind of the individual, therefore acknowledging a unique set of information that may be of importance to them.
Holocaust denial should be legal in United States

Thanks dude for being cool about me completely messing up my last argument. I have been doing this stuff on an iPad and uploaded my argument before I had finished it...palm face. And you are right in your previous argument, but I am not talking about a corporation bar fight scenario. I am talking about dangerous groups spreading defamation about a minority and certain violent members of that group acting on those incorrect historical assertions. Whilst I would not be against a group believing, for example, that by some fictional divine right the people of Baltimore feel they are better than the people of Phillidelphia and then some riot breaking out at a sports event. I mean, I would be against the riot. But I would not argue that we should outlaw general superiority beliefs just incase. But the holocaust happened. There has been too much primary and secondary evidence to even try to argue otherwise with a straight face. To suggest that it was all or partially a lie is beyond offensive but can be used to incite hatred against people. And can be damaging to children who are taught these things and then grow up with a warped and twisted world view. Holocaust denial (and I would argue, genocide denial in general...but for this debate just holocaust denial for now) should be outlawed because denial is the last stage of the act of genocide (1). It is not just some skin heads sitting in a bar talking about how the Jews tricked the world. By denying the Holocaust happened they are themselves taking part in the genocide themselves and keeping it going. The definition of genocide Is the systematic extermination of a racial or cultural group and denying that a genocide happened is the last stage of this process. By denying the holocaust they are attempting to assist the perpetrators with getting away with the worst crime imaginable. (1) - http://www.learning4u2.com... (2) - http://dictionary.reference.com...
Holocaust denial should be legal in United States

Holocaust denial in itself does not incite harmful actions. The reactions of certain people to holocaust denial would be harmful, but that does not mean that people should be barred from expressing such a belief. If you were to scream "Burger King caused the 9-11 attacks!" and a group of Burger King's corporate executives were there and beat you up, it would not be your fault if you actually believed in what you were saying (and it is difficult to prove otherwise.) You would have had the right to express your own belief, and although it may make Burger King look bad, it would be legal for you to do it. It is ridiculously difficult to prove with certainty that someone is expressing a belief that he/she believes in [1]; in fact, it's virtually impossible based on modern police inquiry. [1] http://www.fas.org...
Holocaust denial should be legal in United States

InVinoVeritas, thanks for the argument. I am not going to lie, it makes a lot of sense. Just so you know, I think you are alright :D Here are my rebuttals and all that. Holocaust denial could incite harmful actions. At it's most extreme Holocaust denial imply's that all the jews who were involved are part of a big confidence scheme to garner sympathy and reparations. Reparations that certain groups could believe they don't deserve and would attempt to take back. This scenario has happened a few times (1). I would also argue that Holocaust denial falls squarely into the "Defamation" exception as well. Claiming that someones relatives where involved in the biggest hoax of the twentieth century..I would be interested to see how that does not fall under libel or slander. (1) (1) - http://www.fas.org...
Holocaust denial should be legal in United States

Criminalizing Holocaust denial in the United States is a blatant violation of freedom of speech. Here is a list of exceptions to freedom of speech [1]: 1) Incitement: Denial of the Holocaust in itself does not directly incite harmful actions. It simply rejects the occurrence of an event; no conspicuous implications regarding committing a crime is involved. 2) Obscenity: There is nothing sexually vulgar about rejecting the Holocaust, and this exception is primarily encompassed by language of a prurient nature, as upheld in the famous Miller v. California case. [2] 3) Child pornography: Denial of the Holocaust has nothing to do with this. 4) Fighting words and offensive speech: This is strongly related to the incitement exception. If the motive of the speaker is simply to instigate a fight, then this speech is not necessarily protected under the first amendment, though this exception is used sparingly. If one holds the belief that the Holocaust did not occur and wishes to say so, he may be saying it to share his belief rather than to incite a fight. The rejection of a historical event cannot be directly associated with "fighting language." 5) Threats: Denial of the Holocaust does not act as a threat. Rather, it is simply the expression of a belief that does not pose any direct harm to anyone. 6) Commercial speech: This involves false advertising and such, but it only is relevant to businesses, so it is not germane to the matter at hand. Therefore, based on current statutes of freedom of speech, there is no reason to disallow Holocaust denial in the United States. [1] http://www.fas.org... [2] http://www.oyez.org...
extracurricular activity

Pro still doesn't show how doing away with extracurricular activities would have any benefit on US students. Not only that, but they outright drop the arguments made last round concerning China, Japan, Korea and Norway. Pro fails to refute the arguments I offer showing that participation in extracurricular activities is a motivator for students to work harder in succeeding in their school work. Also I would like to clarify that when I define extracurricular activities as those not falling within the regular curriculum, there is no contradiction here when considering the TEA curriculum (TEKS). For those unaware TEA is the curriculum undertaken by Public High school students in the state of Texas; It includes, among other things, 4 Years of English, Science, Math and Social studies. UIL, athletic and other classes are not a part of this required curriculum, but electives that students may choose to take. Ultimately Pro has shown evidence detailing how US schools are in poor standing with other countries, but never doing away with extracurricular activities will solve this problem. On the other hand, I show that involvement in UIL readies kids for college as well as motives them to focus more on their studies.
extracurricular activity

Members of the voting population, CON will say that I, Pro, have not made no compelling argument as to why US schools should get rid of their extracurricular activates and have presented many irrelevant evidences claim that a problem exists that doesn"t really exist. I will take you back to the opening statement of CON that he made about the definition of extracurricular activates is educational activates not falling within the scope of the regular curriculum. Are these extracurricular activities not within the scope of regular curriculum? Yes, they are by CON own submission in round 2, round 3, and round 4 of UIL academics in Texas argument. The UIL academics don"t do completions that are not in TEA curriculum (TEKS). These TEKS fall within the scope of regular curriculum. My opponent, CON, will state I am making another irrelevant argument in the final round and will ask that I lose conduct points for this. However, it is not irrelevant argument just stated CON own submission of guilty that Extracurricular Activity should be getting rid in US Schools. Here are the facts of the case: In Round 2 and Round 4, I, Pro, shown that ALL extracurricular activities do benefit students to a degree although at what cost of the public, students, schools and economy. Cost at weights the benefit in this case. In Round 3, I, Pro, shown that US school model of extracurricular activities is not preparing our students for college readiness especially the minorities. Finally, until we turn around American culture towards education (round 4), this is why we should get rid of extracurricular activities.
extracurricular activity

There are two principles which stand in con's favor, the first is correlation and causation and the next is simple misinterpretation. Con shows that successful foreign schools in China, Japan and Korea have a bigger focus on school general, and that's true. But it's also true that students in these cultures have a bigger reason to want to succeed in school as their society places a bigger emphasis on academic success. However to assert that these schools do not participate in extracurricular activities is a fallacy in the worst form Japan's schools place a huge emphasis on extracurricular activities[10], and many schools in Japan even require their students to participate in extracurricular activities[11]. The same is true for China[12] and Norway[13] (given Norway's extracurricular activities aren't directly associated with the schools. [10] . http://spice.stanford.edu... [11] . http://www.mext.go.jp... [12] . http://www.chinaeducenter.com... [13] . http://www.afsusa.org... South Korean schools on the other hand face harsh criticism for their lack of (among other things) extracurricular activities[14]. [14] . http://newpol.org... As for the UIL requiring that time be set aside in the school day to practice, this is neither true nor a bad thing even if it were true. Many public texas schools do sponsor 'UIL classes' where students have the time to practice for their respective events, but it's more of an optional thing for the schools than a requirement. Texas schools require students to take so many elective hours in order to graduate, and it's better to take an elective class that prepares you to participate in science, social studies or literary criticism than a class that would have not impact on the student. The end-all point here, is that Pro provides no compelling argument as to why US schools should get rid of their extracurricular activities. Pro consistently drops arguments and instead presents irrelevant evidence claim that a problem exists that doesn't Extracurricular activities provide students with valuable life skills as well as academic ways to occupy their time.