BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High schools waste time with foreign language, fine arts and gym requirements.

Thank you for posting this debate. I will begin with my opponents opening, 1. High schools waste not only time, but resources and money with these requirements. My opponent considers these classes a waste however it is not possible to define them as such. A waste would imply that the value of the class is out weighed by its cost. In this case you cannot assign a monetary value to an appreciation of the fine arts or music, Furthermore the value of a healthy lifestyle as is taught and promoted in Phys ed. can hardly be considered a waste. 2. Most students would not take these classes if they were not required. This is a given as they are required classes they are not required because they are the most popular or easiest classes. My opponent's statement is both obvious and irrelevant. 3. The students who are force to take these classes through requirements, for the most part, do not use the class for any post school progressions in life. e.g. it's truly not useful in their life The above statement is blatantly false. In the US over 12 billion dollars a year are spent by individuals utilizing their Phys Ed training in the Gym, Museums enjoy thousands of visitors a day by those you claim have no interest in Fine art and symphony attendance in most major cities is Also on the rise. 4. These classes not being required would allow students to have a more focus base program for their college career and/or interest. The Majority of Colleges require you to meet a foreign language credit. Therefore studying a language is preparing you for college. 5. In addition, it would create a better imitative through freedom of choice Freedom of choice given to a population that has no idea what they need to or should choose has never been a good idea nor has it been successful. Studies conducted at the University of Chicago have shown a direct correlation between the study of Music composition and an ability to understand advanced mathematic structures. The findings were clear in that Mathematic and Music theory are very much intertwined. This in itself shows the value of the study of Music as it increases the understanding of mathematics on a very advanced level. The university of California produced a study in 1993 that stated "Mozart raises IQ" Eluding to the fact that classical music actually makes you smarter. My opponent is basing his entire argument on Speculation and the well known fact that most teenagers do not like being told what to do. The overwhelming evidence is that these courses however difficult and seemingly tedious are extremely beneficial to students and should be included in the required curriculum
High schools waste time with foreign language, fine arts and gym requirements.

I'm in high school and can personally defend my argument. 1.High schools waste not only time, but resources and money with these requirements. 2.Most students would not take these classes if they were not required. 3.The students who are force to take these classes through requirements, for the most part, do not use the class for any post school progressions in life. e.g. it's truly not useful in their life 4.These classes not being required would allow students to have a more focus base program for their college career and/or interest. 5.In addition, it would create a better imitative through freedom of choice
electronics in school

I suppose that the disadvantages of having phones or tablets for students considerably outweigh the benefits. Here are the reasons for it: 1) Students get disctracted by phones. The cases of emergencies don't happen very frequently; however, the availability to the Internet on phones keeps us connected to different sites-- for example, social networking sites-- all the time. As a result, student have a temptation to chat with their friends online or surf the Internet instead of listening to "boring" lessons. Thus, their productivity on the lessons decreases due to phones. In addition, in the case of emergency, parents can call school's administartion and ask them to alert you, so students' devices are not the only solution for such kind of problem. 2) Phones influence the social status of a student in school community. Mostly, the phone model can tell about the level of income in a student's family. Those who cannot afford expensive telephones may feel uncomfortable comparing themselves with those who have the newest phone models. Also, children with "cool" smartphones can have better impression in the eyes of their peers, meanwhile kids with bad or even no phones will have a disadvantage. So, having no phones in school can help to create the atmosphere of true friendhip where students will choose friends not according to their level of income, but looking at qualities of character. 3) You said that student's phones would reduse school's expenditures. But have you considered that children can have absolutely different phones? For example, while some phones can support certain apps necessary for the work at a lesson, others cannot. Moreover, some students don't have phones at all. What should they do? I think that it would be significantly better for school to provide its students with the same equipment for proper work at lessons rather than to have such problems.
If Asia were a unity China would be the dominant state(Russia does count)

"(Sorry if this doesn't sound or feel full I have a lot on my plate and have been typing this sentences at a time)" Don't worry about it, I've had the same problem before. "China's naval personnel is also 5 times bigger than Japans. Also Japan doesn't have a Marine force unlike China's 12,000 man army." It's true that if China fought Japan in one-on-one, China would almost certainly win. That being said, Japan has many allies, and Japan is also trying (and has been) expanding its military in response to new threats. As I mentioned, America is supplying Japan with tech and weapons. "Also don't forget that China has a tight relationship with North Korea which will help them with anything. " True, North Korea might be dragged into the fray, thus sparking a WWIII. But this would probably drag the UN into the conflict, and on the side of the US and Japan. Thanks for debate, voters please vote.
If Asia were a unity China would be the dominant state(Russia does count)

China has a plan to grow its maritime force to 351 ships by 2020. In doing so the US is planning to add around 60 ships by 2020 to oppose China. Currently Japan has 124 ships and 400 aircraft, but China already has 495 ships and 650 aircraft. China's naval personnel is also 5 times bigger than Japans. Also Japan doesn't have a Marine force unlike China's 12,000 man army. Also don't forget that China has a tight relationship with North Korea which will help them with anything. If this does happen it might be another World War.... the US citizens like us would probably freak out too... (Sorry if this doesn't sound or feel full I have a lot on my plate and have been typing this sentences at a time)
If Asia were a unity China would be the dominant state(Russia does count)

"Well first of all The Peoples Republic of China does have relations to the US in the Sino-American Relations. " True, but America is bound by treaty to aid Japan in the event of a war (Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security ). Also, America has several bases in Japan, so it's almost a given they would support Japan in a China vs Japan face off. In fact, they have been giving weapons/technology to Japan. "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday the U.S. supported Japan in its territorial dispute with China over offshore islands and announced the U.S. would bolster Japan's defenses with MV-22 Ospreys and advanced radars opposed by Beijing." http://www.military.com... "China's population dwarfs Japans. China has a population of 1,368,260,000 and Japan has a population of 127.3 million they are just dwarfed. If China started a draft they could just take over Japan with all of its might. Also China has way more money and power. There arsenal is literally a knock off of the US. They have high tech arsenal w/ highly trained soldiers." It's true that China has a bigger population and spends more money on their military, Japan does have a powerful navy. "Defense analysts and American commanders agree that Japan's strongest asset is its Maritime Self-Defense Force, or MSDF, widely regarded as the world's second-most capable navy after the United States's. With a tradition dating back to Japan's formidable wartime fleet, and top hardware like the Aegis radar system, the Japanese have the only naval force, except perhaps Britain's, with the ability to work so fully and seamlessly with the United States fleet, American commanders say." "While China's navy added its first aircraft carrier in 2012, defense analysts say Japan still enjoys a decades-wide advantage not only in technology but also in experience operating large warships. Japan has more of these larger, blue-water vessels like destroyers, and some of the world's stealthiest submarines." http://www.nytimes.com... While Japan does have a smaller military compared to China, Japan has better technology and the support of the US.
If Asia were a unity China would be the dominant state(Russia does count)

Well first of all The Peoples Republic of China does have relations to the US in the Sino-American Relations. China's population dwarfs Japans. China has a population of 1,368,260,000 and Japan has a population of 127.3 million they are just dwarfed. If China started a draft they could just take over Japan with all of its might. Also China has way more money and power. There arsenal is literally a knock off of the US. They have high tech arsenal w/ highly trained soldiers. Both countries military's are untested, but Japan does train with the US one of the best military powers.
Religion is the root of all evil.

Since the dawn of man religion in one form or another has played a detrimental role to the shaping of our civilization. My point will be that people feed off of one anothers fears and have created the biggest folly in human history. I would like to thank my opponent, Knowitall, for accepting this debate. This is my first of such events and look forward to many more. Religion has been used for millenniums to control the mass population. Sine we, as a species, were still in our caves afraid of the dark, it has been the trump card for zealots and leaders alike in an attempt to keep humans under control with the fear of where they go in the afterlife. This mind state has been breed, beaten, and imposed onto people for countless different reasons by countless different secular religions. Wars have been waged and lives have been lost by the billions in an attempt to push people towards the idea that there is a great, omnipresent, imaginary being in the sky that watches over everything we do. If we follow heel - toe to what is considered right by the masses then we are granted eternal life floating on a cloud and/or different dimension. If we are "heathens" and do not follow said masses idea then we will spend an eternity in a place of fire and brimstone. The Dark Ages, Spanish Inquisitions, Crusades, Salem Witch trials, Third Reich/Nazi movement, manifest destinies and most war campaigns, just to name a few, have been in an attempt to get "Sub-humans" up to par with conquering nations beliefs in said imaginary friend. It is estimated that over 809 million people,(1) (Surely not an accurate representation.) have lost their lives because of their lack of faith. 1. http://bookrate.wordpress.com...
Religion is the root of all evil.

I accept my opponent's definition of the word evil. However, my opponent has failed to point out any of the 10 commandments that can be considered detrimental to society or evil. (http://www.bible-knowledge.com...) I agree with the moral codes of not stealing and not committing murder, and apparently civilized society does as well as deliberately violating these specific moral codes are punishable crimes. Also, violating a few of the commandments would not be detrimental to society. The Black Death being attributed to God unleashing the plague does not constitute religion being the root of all evil. This debate centers on whether or not religion is the root of evil not whether or not God exists. Attributing the deaths associated with the Black Death to religion would be the same as blaming all deaths on religion as God has the power to decide who lives or dies. It would also be the same as attributing the death of a Catholic by a Jew in a car accident to religion. There is no correlation. The use of stem cells is a topic for another debate. My opponent's statement that moral codes derived from religion being smoke and mirrors does not constitute religion being the root of all evil but rather is nothing more than an opinion on his feelings towards religion in general. In his example of the murder of a 12 year old child, the animal extinct would be to exact revenge. Luckily, we are not animals. Knocking the murderer out as opposed to killing him could be a decision based on fear of punishment as in going to prison for life just as easily as it could do with religious belief. I fail to see how the justice system shows that religion is evil. Also, leaving underage children at home alone is a punishable crime called Child Endangerment in many states. In closing, everyday life for many is affected by religion in various forms. Many donate their time to the soup kitchen run by their congregation, many donate food and clothing and many perform a good deed based on the moral codes provided by their belief in religion. My opponent closed by stating the numbers cannot be compared to the amount of lives lost by people in their belief in God but fails to provide any substantiated numbers. I believe that my opponent has not only failed to prove his statement that religion is the root of all evil but rather attempts to dispute the existence of God while blaming death on religion which was not the topic of debate. Thank you.
Religion is the root of all evil.

Evil is defined as, "The intention or effect to cause harm or destruction, usually specifically from the perception of deliberately violating some moral code." ( http://en.wikipedia.org...) These "moral codes" according to western civilization are defined predominately by the ten commandments, a set of stones given to Moses at the top of Mt. Sinai by a burning bush. My opponent has said that, "One third of the population during the Dark Ages was not attributed to religion but rather to the plague knows as the Black Death which eliminated approximately one third of the population." In many cases, the Black Death was attributed to a plague set onto the people by God himself. Therefore, instead of seeking a scientific cause or cure for the Black Death, many people took it as an incurable affliction in which God would either kill or spare them according to the weight of their soul. (good/evil.) This same mindset has hindered the scientific community in the progression of medicines for ages. In todays age, this mindset has also been used to stop the progression of stem cell research because of the "God complex". Dr. James Thompson, a leader in the field of stem cell research has said that stem cells could save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. (http://web.mit.edu...) My opponent has said that, "Religion provides a moral code for its followers and many religions have moral codes that differ. I find moral codes contained in Christianity to be good such as ‘Thou shall not murder." These moral codes are nothing but more smoke and mirrors as a way to keep people from exacting the revenge that is sometimes due and necessary. I have a scenario, (worst case, of course.) that I would like to give to my opponent and our voters. Let's say that you and your wife come home from a nice evening out. You open your front door to find blood splatters everywhere and immediately go upstairs to check on your children while your wife calls the police. Upon opening the door to your 12 year old daughters room, you find a naked man standing over the body of your child, she's not breathing and is clearly dead. The animal instinct in ALL humans would be to exact swift and just revenge for the death of your loved one but due to "moral and ethical" conflicts derived from religion you second guess yourself, knock the man out, and wait for the police. The man has his day in court and due to a "technicality" is set free after spending less than a year in jail. What do you do? You have already lost your child, your marriage has been on the rocks since that night and the stress has already consumed you and those you love. In closing, from wars to science, and even everyday living is always affected by religion in some form or another. Religion has cause wars since the dawn of man but their numbers cannot even compare to the amount of lives lost by people that believe that "Gods' will be done".Thank you
Religion is the root of all evil.

I will begin my attacking his statement that "Wars have been waged and lives have been lost by the billions in an attempt to push people towards the idea that there is a great, omnipresent, imaginary being in the sky that watches over everything we do. " In order for this statement to be true one must take every war from the start of recorded history to the ongoing conflicts of today. However, I would like to address the examples he provided in his opening statement. The Nazi movement was not directly attributed to religion but rather politics. Depending on estimates 5 million or more Jews were killed during the Holocaust. However, Hitler did not murder the Jews in the name of any religion but rather as he deemed Judaism along with Communism as the two greatest threats to mankind. In order to tie Holocaust to religion one must prove that the Holocaust was waged in the name of a religion which cannot be done. One third of the population during the Dark Ages was not attributed to religion but rather to the plague knows as the Black Death which eliminated approximately one third of the population. If all estimated deaths are tallied between the Spanish Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials the tally is less than 200,000. There are no detailed records of actual deaths attributed to the Crusades. I'm sure that my opponent will agree that WWI and WW2 were not religious wars. Between the two wars over 90 million deaths can be attributed to the wars. (WWI - Approximately 37 million (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) WW2 - Approximately 60 million. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) I'm sure that my opponent will agree that the conflicts of today, or even the last two centuries for that matter are not based solely on religion. Religion provides a moral code for its followers and many religions have moral codes that differ. I find moral codes contained in Christianity to be good such as ‘Thou shall not murder. " (the correct interpretation. ) However, there is a major difference between religion and religious extremism. Perhaps most religious conflict stems from religious extremism as compared to religion itself. People feeding off of each others fear is not isolated to religion. Life Insurance sales people use the fear of what will happen to one's family if he or she should die without a policy. Politicians use fear in order to pass legislation such as the Patriot Act. Parents use the fear of punishment against their children.
Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected Under Freedom of Speech

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 1989. I do not care about what someone else thinks or how hurt they are by what I say. If you want to limit my speech, I will be waiting with my 2nd Amendment strapped to my side. By your definition, and I do agree of altering it, you want any insulting language to be banned. I fear that with this argument, you will likely end up breaking my record of never swearing on debate.org. This is plainly absurd. Hate speech is burning a cross in front of a black family. This actually happened, and it was banned because a burning cross is a sign of the KKK, which is a very hateful group. However, my ability to call someone the "n" word for example, should not be taken away. I want to speak freely and that is it. One flaw I find in your argument is that hateful speech is subjective. One may find it hateful, the other may not. Under this stupid law that you want to make, people could abuse the system and just categorize everything as hateful, and the court would have to agree. You cannot say what might hurt others feelings, because people nowadays are insulted by everything! Those hate crimes you mentioned were very severe. A hate crime is a normal crime, such as assault, rape, or murder, but it was initialized due to race or cultural differences. I agree that threats should not be protected, and they already aren't. If you are found saying severe threats, you will be fined or sent to prison. However, I should and will have the right to insult others based on whatever I please. The great thing about freedom of speech is being able to say what you want without having to care about other people. If we were to make hate speech illegal, we would have to get 10x the police force, and we could cut all taxes because the fines would bring in so much revenue. I'm sorry if I am a little forward, just that I am a strong believer in the Constitution and it really aggravates me when people try to argue that we do not need these rights.
Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected Under Freedom of Speech

Hi! I am personally for the freedom of speech protecting hate speech, but as I did a parliamentary debate on this topic, I wanted to try my case against someone. Moreover, I am running a specific plan that I would like to test its efficacy. This is my first real debate on this site, so forgive me for basic errors I make. Format should go like this Round 1- prop initiates and lays out definitions, opp accepts and provides any additional clarifications Round 2- Pro arguments, Con-ref and arguments Round 3- Pro ref and conclusion, con- conclusion Definitions: Hate Speech- speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. (American Bar Association) Freedom of Speech- the right to express facts and opinions subject only to reasonable limitations... guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of some state constitutions. (Merriam Webster Dictionary) Protect- To ensure the ability to speak in manner discussed in debate (hate speech) without legal repercussions. Thanks!