BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is school truly needed

I'm just going to make a couple opening statements: 1) My opponent clearly hasn't been paying enough attention during school to know whether it will benefit him for the future or not. This debate could very possibly have anywhere between 100 and 10,000 spelling and grammar mistakes all on my opponent's side. 2) The reason education is needed is for preparation for college, which is the best way to guarantee yourself a job. People with a bachelor degree at least find it easier to find a job, and they earn more money. People who took classes that would teach them things beneficial to their future field of practice. I'll break out the Jonbonbon's Encyclopedia of Education 2nd Edition next round for some supporting evidence of my opening statements.
is school truly needed

Is school truly needed I myself think that some schooling is needed but not all . High school is not every much needed because we are just going over the things we have learned in middle school . in high school you use math that you will never need in life . I believe some things are very helpful but what's the point of learning something you don't use , its like a waste of brain space . some classes you take or need to graduate are pointless, such as civics ,and integrated math . I dint understand why we needed to learn a different language , this is America and most of us speak English . Now middle school is needed when your in middle school your so young an you really don't know anything , all the classes I took in middle school taught me everything I know ! math , science ,English and many more useful classes . I can really sit back an count on my hands the new things I have learned from being in high school . if we are just going go be reviewing what we learned in middle school in high school its really a waste of money too. if we cant afford the schools an they are being taken from us lets not be silly and keep a cool when we are just reviewing for 4 years
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic.the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements.i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things?what or where exactly is the threshhold?if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise.what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc.ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time.some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary.some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory.and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come intoplay?so what's the magical formula?
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

con seems to be basically making my point. con says there's all kinds of standards if you look at all the different branches of christianity. con says there issn't a specific point of f aith to observe. the best con says is you should have a pure heart while acknowledging that everyone is a sinner so we can't just say "have a pure heart" we need a little more. con seems to have basically taken the debate just to concede it.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

In Christianity the key point is that you follow the "guidelines" of the religion . Everyone is a sinner and everyone will always be a sinner, it is important to have a pure heart to be saved. There are many things, like the Sins, that show Christians how to live there lives. Although there isn't a specific point of faith they have to observe, there are certain things about it they have to observe. I feel that this topic is way to open to be having a debate about it because there are numerous branches within Christianity that do have a set threshold and it may be extreme or very relaxed.
Ghosts and spirits are real

It is not just film editing. There are plenty of photos that have not been uncovered as hoaxes. If a lot of normal people who are not insane, or mentally unstable can see them why are they fake? Do they get together and discuss pulling another hoax? People genuinely see them. There have been ghost and spirit sightings for centuries. Let me address where you said 'if they`re real why don`t they haunt you?' .Why are all ghosts supposed to haunt people? Its stereotypical 'ghost' behaviour. There are good and bad people in this world its probably the same with ghosts. In theory, ghosts are spirits who are trapped on earth because someone has done them wrong or they have unfinished business. They do not go round 'haunting' and scaring people. I , by the way am not some loony who is going around saying"ghosts exist, believe, believe." I am just thinking that they must exist if so many people see them.
Performing greedy deeds is immoral.

"The capacity for having moral feelings is biological and such feelings are instinctual, giving us a capacity for instinctually feeling whether an act is right or wrong." Pro Claim: Racism is an instinct. Warrant: "do you have any strong indication otherwise? Racism is a natural extension of favouring your own tribe over others, which is indeed a survival instinct" [6]. "A new study provides more proof that racism is a natural instinct that we are all born with."[7]. Impact: By Pro's logic greed is immoral and racism is moral. Pro seems to take the natural selection route. That instincts and instinctual feelings cause moral behavior which influences social behavior. Natural selection has ensured that only good instincts get passed onto the next generation. Pro's argument breaks down when one tribe meets another. Instincts tell humans to harm the other tribe. Yet, there is many philosophies, religions, and laws that state its immoral to harm another tribe. In order to prove that pro is correct, Pro must assert why racism is good. " I'd like to point out that although a system like capitalism may promote greed, that doesn't mean people's morals change so that they view greed as morally good. " Pro Claim: Donald Trump disagrees. Warrant: "The point is that you can"t be too greedy." [8]. Donald Trump Impact: The evidence suggests that people living in capitalistic societies do see greed as good. Instincts while being panhuman contradict almost every nation's laws and religion. Last time I checked its not within the spirit of most religions to go around killing people of other nations. Instincts don't prepare us when dealing with other races and many modern technological advances. There seems to be no way that instincts and evolution could prepare humans to drive fifty kilometers a mile or fly an airplane. Thanks for the debate, vote Con. Links 6. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com... 7. http://www.dailystormer.com... 8. https://usefulquotations.wordpress.com...
Performing greedy deeds is immoral.

Greed is not immoral, in fact Greed is morally sound. Claim1: There a lot of philosophies, religions, and nations. Warrant: Here ten philosophies to begin with. [1]. "79 entries are listed here. It is simply impossible to list all varieties of religion" [2]. "Ultimately, the best answer is that there are 196 countries in the world." [3]. Impact: There are at least 10 philosophies, 79 religions, and 196 countries. All with different moral codes. If you put all the philosophies, religions, and countries in a hat and randomly selected one greed would not always be immoral. Claim2: Under some philosophies greed is good. Warrant: "Ethical egoism states that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. Basically, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it is able to maximize one"s self-interest." [1]. Impact: Who is to state that Pros philosophy is correct and Ethical egoism isn't? Claim3: Some religions claim greed is good. Warrant: "Rules of Acquisition #10: Greed is Eternal"[4]. Impact: Who are we to know which religions are correct and which aren't? Since at least one states that greed is good, there is religious grounds that greed is good. Claim4: Some nations reward greed. Warrant: Look at the USA just for starters. Warrant Buffet paying little taxes [5]. Impact: Clearly nations do not see greed as evil. Now to avoid kettle logic Con contends that since there is such a wide variance in beliefs that all negate each other. Different philosophies negate each other just as different religions contradict each other and finally nations laws. There is only the universal truth of there are no morals. No good nor evil. Now to Pro's argument, Pro seems to be confusing animal's instincts with morals. It is biologically to our advantage to be afraid of sharp objects and large bodies of water. Just as it is from a Darwinism point of view to cooperate to a degree. The same goes for nation, yes there is an advantage to some degree of cooperation. Finally, the same goes for many nations, it is within each nation's best interest to cooperate to an extent. Yet, cooperation doesn't mean good or evil. Just an animal instinctively marking his territory isn't good nor evil. As for Pro's statement about a moral code, Pro is confusing order and chaos with good and evil. Nation's laws exist to promote order, not to promote goodness. "o, it breaks with the group's moral code."Pro Group's moral code could be rewritten group's order code. For example, organize these bottles into rows. Neither order nor chaos equal morally. Most people will agree that tax collection is orderly, yet is immoral. Think of Prince John and Robin Hood. Simply following orders and society's rules does not equal moral behavior. Finally think of the roman legionnaire's. The army was orderly and followed the rules. Yet, few would see them as a force of good. Links 1. http://www.toptenz.net... 2. http://www.humanreligions.info... 3. http://geography.about.com... 4. http://priorityonepodcast.com... 5. http://economiccollapsenews.com...
Performing greedy deeds is immoral.

Morals come from animal brains which are a result of natural selection and evolution. Morals have evolved because of how they regulate social behaviours and affect fitness. If you were alone in the universe, you would have no need for morals. As such, morals are useful when interacting with others and wouldn't exist otherwise. Morals generally help promote cooperation by ensuring mutual advantage with a simple example being; "you scratch my back, I scratch yours". Common morals would say that if you help someone, they should help you in return. If someone does not help you in return, a sense of morale helps you recognize this and avoid helping this person in the future. After all, experience tells you they would not reciprocate. Similarly, recognizing that it's your turn to help someone will motivate you in so doing which, on average, will also help you because cooperation is good and has helped promote human genes in the past. Fundamental morals being the way they are prove this by their very existence. They wouldn't be here otherwise. Mutual help will help ensure more mutual help in the future. So, morals and the desire to act morally is a normal expression of human genes. This motivation is not rational, rather it is a gut feeling more like sex than it is a rational thought. Behaving immoraly, like murdering someone innocent, would cause emotional distress to a healthy human being. Most of us are judged by our very nature. But, as morals helps regulate interactions with others, others moral opinions of us are also important to us. As for greed, I will go with the merriam-webster definition : a selfish desire to have more of something (especially money). Selfishness, for which Wikipedia has what I regard as a pretty standard definition, is being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. A person who wants something regardless of others, and acts on that, commits an act of greed. From the point of view of others, this is immoral because it is an asocial act. Most likely, it takes from them a resource which could otherwise be used by them and so they judge it negatively. The very fact that the deed is identified as an act of greed indicates that the deed breaks with the group's moral code. So, it breaks with the group's moral code. Most likely, it breaks with the greedy's moral code as well, but it could be that they do not realize their greed or have abnormal emotions. Possibly, they thought the act was immoral but decided to do it anyways because the gain is bigger than the loss (loss of social standing). Regardless, as good morals promote cooperation, an act of greed can be said to be immoral if it reduces others willingness to cooperate with the person who committed the act of greed.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

My opponent does not know the rules to LD debate, therefore I cannot debate him. The resolution is strictly resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. I say it is morally permissible because I am not violating the individual's rights because I am respecting his autonomy by agreeing to his consent. I am also saving millions of lives by sacrificing this person. If my opponent keeps stating questioning whether it is okay to kill a person, he is not covering neg ground. Let me set a burden on my opponent. IF MY OPPONENT CAN PROVE THAT UNDER HYPOTHETICAL CONSENT, A PERSON WILL ALWAYS SAY NO TO KILLING HIMSELF TO SAVE MORE LIVES, THEN MY OPPONENT WINS. I say that no rational person will say no. If a person is reasoned, informed, and uncoerced, there is no argument that can disprove this. Therefore, aff consumes neg and any point he makes on preserving autonomy or one person's life, because I am covering neg ground which is sufficient for aff to win.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

Have you done LD debate before? LoL. So you obviously don't know how to debate on morality. In order to really determine a moral decision you must look at completely random people, so asking me if I'd kill my mom or family does not apply. I am caring for this person because I am agreeing to his hypothetical consent and I preserve more life. My opponent has no case, therefore I win the round by default.
Our current government is not sustainable

Pro's forfeit of the final round says it all. For my concluding argument I will simply restate my most valuable points.1. The governmental system is separate from the economic system. While it's true that a governmental system's form can influence an economics system's form, the inverse is not.2. Our current governmental system is sustainable because it has the three key factors that I listed. The support of the people, the resource/financial funding to stay in operation, and the military force to keep it in power. The most important of these three being the support of the people. In almost every revolution that has lasted more than a century in modern times has resulted in the formation of a government where the people hold the most power. The most successful form of these is the Federal Republic. So while the sustainability of the economic system is clearly questionable, the governmental system is not as likely to fall so easily. If you wish to see more in depth explanation of these points than just read the previous rounds statements.I would like to thank all of those who read this debate and are voting. I would also like to extend a hand to Copper29 for allowing me this chance to argue and say that I hope we will meet again on the intellectual battlefield.
Our current government is not sustainable

America's debt is climbing further and further yet most people are convinced that everything that went wrong back in 2008 has been fixed. Both major parties seem to believe that we can simply keep acquiring debt and have nothing happening. Now, If this sounds hard to believe, I understand. From my day to day experience it feels like everything is on the up and up. But it's an illusion. The reason that we don't feel the troubles yet is because the US is the only country that can legally print the US dollar. The USD is the standard international trading currency. Other countries hold our money in their reserves and have to keep their currencies close to or more valuable than the dollar to prevent their economies from undergoing extreme inflation. But we can just add money to the system with relatively low inflation or consequence because we are the standard and do not currently need to conform to anyone else's monetary system. For example, if France wants to buy oil from Saudi Arabia they can't just give them a Franc, or I guess it's the euro now, no, they have to use the USD to purchase the oil. To put it simply, if you believe that we live in a market world, and that the dollar dictates the market, then the dollar dictates the world, and if we dictate the dollar, then you figure it out. But the issue is that the world doesn't have to keep taking our money. If the world stops taking our money and holding it in their reserves then a huge amount of money would be re implemented into the system, and now that the dollar isn't the standard inflation would be enormous. The price of Gas, Food, everything that we need to live our lives would skyrocket. Our inflation would exceed our interest rates. This would mean that the money in our banks would actually be losing value. But this is the least of our worries. But this of course can't happen it won't happen, unless we default on our loans. But we will have to. No one in the US is going to give up the government programs they already have. Medicare is a disaster and will be one of the first programs to fall if we don't default. But that is unrealistic, the US will have to default and the dollar will plummet and our economy will be in shambles. All in all, our debt is too big. And our government, too big to fail.
Sandy hoax. The actors got free houses before the shooting!

I already refutted my opponent's points from the round 4 and she simply copied and pasted those points and placed them on her round 5 arguments so it would be redonent to repost my rebuttal. As for the sources you had to provide a link and not just veterans today because that is a very large website and would be impossible to check every article and find were you got your data. Same with the supposed photoshopped photos, I have to see them to debunk them. Throughout the debate I successfully refutted all of my opponent's main points and she never attempted to refute any of my points. This means she accepted my points as valid and therefore the sandy hook massacre. Also Pro never keeps with her same main points showing that she accepts that I have debunked them. Furthermore their were two parts to the debate that Pro had the burdening of proving, that the sandy hook massacre was a hoax and that the victim's families received free houses from the government, after debunking the latter theory Pro never attempts to provide further evidence to support her claim. She failed to meet her burden of proof on both issues meaning Con wins. I provided 12 links to back up my claims while Pro gave no link throughout the debate.
Sandy hoax. The actors got free houses before the shooting!

2. Funerals don't cost that much and people also donated to Gene Rosen who did not loose anyone in that event. 3. Parker works for a security camera company. If he's a physicians assistant that why was he wearing jeans I the day if the shooting. If he heard there was a shooting at his kids school he wouldn't change from his work clothes first. He's race to the school in his doctor clothes. None of the parents had work clothes-they all came to sandy hook wearing jeans ect when though Newtown in a commuter town. Weird?. 6. You don't find that weird? It's not the main reason that people think this but it's certainly a factor. What about all the photoshopped pictures. In one picture Emilie Parker's sisters don't have legs. In another picture Emilie is clearly pasted in. There is a straw that becomes transparent once in front of her. A picture of a girl names lily gaubert from Georgia was taken from her moms Instagram and used as Allison Wyatt a victim from sandy hook Source fur Robbie Parker veterans today, Newtown database. The photos set shown on all the sandy hook web sites, all the major news sites like cnn
Sandy hoax. The actors got free houses before the shooting!

Rebuttal: 1. The average funeral costs between 7,000 and 10,000 dollars also its a child's funeral so they may want to do something special. Source-http://funeral-tips.com... 2. Can you provide a source to back up your claim that Robbie Parker works for a security camera company, as I did that shows that he truly is a assistant physician. 3. Most doctors wear their casual clothes under a lab coat so he didn't have to stop home and change as you would say. 4. The shooting happened on a Friday, Fridays are usually set aside as causal days at work. Source-http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5. Could you provide a source to these photos, otherwise they can't be used as evidence to back up your claim.
Sandy hoax. The actors got free houses before the shooting!

2. Funerals don't cost that much and people also donated to Gene Rosen who did not loose anyone in that event. 3. Parker works for a security camera company. If he's a physicians assistant that why was he wearing jeans I the day if the shooting. If he heard there was a shooting at his kids school he wouldn't change from his work clothes first. He's race to the school in his doctor clothes. None of the parents had work clothes-they all came to sandy hook wearing jeans ect when though Newtown in a commuter town. Weird?. 6. You don't find that weird? It's not the main reason that people think this but it's certainly a factor. What about all the photoshopped pictures. In one picture Emilie Parker's sisters don't have legs. In another picture Emilie is clearly pasted in. There is a straw that becomes transparent once in front of her. A picture of a girl names lily gaubert from Georgia was taken from her moms Instagram and used as Allison Wyatt a victim from sandy hook