BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time is NOT of the essence

If it is a noun why is it so remarkably similar to the verb usage of time:To time:to appoint or choose the moment or occasion for; schedule: http://dictionary.reference.com...Your definition describes the appointing of schedules to events.It doesn't matter if you say "The keeping" or "To keep" your definition is still describing an action, therefore a verb. It does not work in the resolution because it cannot function as a subject of a verb in any sense, because it is not a noun. "I never said people could choose when to die, I merely stated that if we arrived years after the pre-scheduled time of an event, the host could actually have died prior to our arrival thus explaining why time is certainly of the essence for proceedings of events." Well... I didn't say you said that! I was essentially saying the host could die anytime! It wouldn't matter what time the event happens!"I don't see how your bomb comparison works. We are speaking of time as in meeting deadlines, not time as in exploding a bomb, besides if you do something before a deadline (for example explode a bomb prior to it's set time, or arrive at an event before you are supposed to) it could show great enthusiasm and efficiency, early birds do get the best worms after all."You just explained a way in which it works! Early birds get the best of worms! When you do something before a given time you supersede the deadline! Thus not meeting it! This is exactly why time is not of the essence!
Time is NOT of the essence

My definition of time was that of a noun, not a verb. Time: The keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event.This is not a verb. this is a noun.The verb 'to time is 'to measure the time which it takes one to do something'. I didn't say that time was to keep to pre-scheduled times I merely stated that it was the keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event.I never said people could choose when to die, I merely stated that if we arrived years after the pre-scheduled time of an event, the host could actually have died prior to our arrival thus explaining why time is certainly of the essence for proceedings of events.I don't see how your bomb comparison works. We are speaking of time as in meeting deadlines, not time as in exploding a bomb, besides if you do something before a deadline (for example explode a bomb prior to it's set time, or arrive at an event before you are supposed to) it could show great enthusiasm and efficiency, early birds do get the best worms after all.I conclude that time is of the essence.
Time is NOT of the essence

I actually did define the resolution!"Time is of the essence, AKA: People should time themselves and meet deadlines"This is not even biased!"Time is of the essence" is a phrase, it is not supposed to be defined each word seperately!This clearly defines the entire term!"Time = The keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event."This is the verb usage of time (as in to time someone), making it incompatable with the resolution since it is clearly a noun! So even if you think official definitions aren't relevant for debates, it still has to be gramatically correct. But official definitions are completely relevant to debate, they are agreed upon and more reliable, your definitions are biased. That's why it is insipid to define murder as, "Killing consenting people humanely" in a debate about murder is wrong.Consider these definitions:a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continuesb : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to futurehttp://www.merriam-webster.com...These definitions are neutral."Time is of the essence because no event could occur, for the sake of society, if it weren't for time being of the essence. In fact the host could die before some people arrived at the event (for example an 18 year old waiting 60 years to arrive at an event scheduled for 7am, 60 years prior to his arrival would perhaps lead to the 30 year old hosting the event to die before the 78 year old, previously 16, to even arrive). This would render events impossible to successfully uphold and thus renders all attempts to hold meetings, dinners, educational classes, examinations, sporting races and many more events rather futile if any, and all, members of the event (EVEN the host) not arriving on time and not comprehending it being of the essence."I find this arguement, incoherent. People can not choose when they die, nor does an event not happening at all make time of the essence, it is just no one ever decided to go! The only consequence you explain is for things that never occurred! But if nothing ever occured then the only consequence is a lack of something that could have happened.Say there is a bomb, if there is a deadline for the bomb to go off, does that mean it must meet this deadline? No, you expect it, the point of the bomb is to destroy, if you can expect its destruction, then you have time to stop it. If the bomb was random, then it would be more effective, and probably scare more people.
Time is NOT of the essence

For fun I shall redo this on opposite side of debate.Time is certainly of the essence.Due to failure of pro to give definitions (he/she merely reworded the resolution, as if that were to explain everything) I shall take the burden upon myself.My definitions (not official ones because official ones aren't relevant to debate):Time = The keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event.of the essence = Of importance to maintain a successful decorum within society.Time is of the essence because no event could occur, for the sake of society, if it weren't for time being of the essence. In fact the host could die before some people arrived at the event (for example an 18 year old waiting 60 years to arrive at an event scheduled for 7am, 60 years prior to his arrival would perhaps lead to the 30 year old hosting the event to die before the 78 year old, previously 16, to even arrive). This would render events impossible to successfully uphold and thus renders all attempts to hold meetings, dinners, educational classes, examinations, sporting races and many more events rather futile if any, and all, members of the event (EVEN the host) not arriving on time and not comprehending it being of the essence.
Time is NOT of the essence

Last time someone accepted when I was gone and messed up the debate, so I am redoing the debate...This is a quick debate! Time is of the essence, AKA: People should time themselves and meet deadlines (timing and meeting deadlines is essential).My position is people should not have to be "on time".P.S. This is not a semantic debate. Forfeits don't count, but don't forfeit.
Communism

Good point but we must remember that the soviet union after lenin, china, cuba, and the other so called "Communist" countries were not really communist, but just as violence rises when the bible or quaran are misinterpreted, violence will arise when the manifesto is misinterpreted. Also, Lenin's Russia became the first country to legalize homosexuality and abortion. In Chile a communist president was democratically elected, and the only violence that took place was a coup de tat against him by the CIA. So although it seems that communism is the root of the violence you could also see the countries opposing communism to be the root.
Communism

Respect and compassion are as much a part of human nature as aggression and competitiveness. Unfortunately in times of political unrest, such as the rise of communism would surely produce, primal instincts are often the most prominent. Look at the USSR, North Korea, Cambodia etc. has the rise of "Communism" contributed to people in these places becoming kind and compassionate? In my opinion, we do not need another attempt at a Utopian society especially if, as is the case with communism, if violence is inevitably needed to establish it.
Communism

Human beings are capable of controlling their natural instincts. We wear clothes, we brush our teeth, and these are not natural things but after years of doing them they have been hard wired into our bodies. Humans evolve, and we can change. We cannot see a homeless man on the side of the road and just conclude he is there because "Humans are naturally competitive, and he lost the competition". We have done so much to leave behind our natural feelings to take into accoutn morality and justice.
Education changes

I accept. The resolution is not particularly clear; normally we would default to the title of the debate, in which case I would be arguing in favor of changing the education system in some way -- if that were the case, Con has clearly taken the wrong side of the debate and should lose as a result. However, I'm going to assume this was merely an error on his part. His opening case is a proposition for how he intends to change the education system, so I'm going to respond to that. Note that, in doing so, he takes on the full burden of proof by virtue of instigating and affirming. He starts by claiming that courses such as Geometry, Chemistry, and Statistics are utterly. However, he fails to back up this claim at all. Statistics, for one, are used every day of our lives; we use statistics to make decisions as to what to consume, for instance. You don't need to be a statistician to benefit from a knowledge of statistics. Any form of chemistry has real-world applications as well in the same way that mathematics do. I could list all of these applications, but this would blur the central benefit of taking these courses: in high school, most people haven't the slightest idea of what they want to do with their lives. How will you know by the time you're in high school that you want to be an engineer? Some may, but most others will not. They'll change their minds, their majors, and possibly their jobs later on -- it's simply a fact of life for people to want to try new things. Taking courses that you perhaps are not interested in at the time -- note that you can develop an interest in said classes over time, in the same way I did for economics, history, and philosophy -- is simply a way to learn, grow and see the world through new perspectives, and you may in the process discern your passion. Even if you end up not liking them, you've narrowed down possible career paths. In order to figure out what you like, you need to figure out what you don't like, especially when choosing from a broad range of possible careers. Next, Con mistakenly insinuates that taking these classes prevents us from taking classes in subjects we're interested in. This is simply not true. You can take varying courses concurrently, specializing in subjects you find interesting and pertinent to your future. But this doesn't negate the point that you should, especially at a young age, be exposed to a wide range of disciplines.
The Electoral college should remain the method of electing presidents in the United states.

quite the Jeffersonian, unequal representation is inherently undemocratic. To bad Jefferson didn't get his way and we now have a senate that unequally represents the public. Must've worked well because the European Union mimicked this formula when calculating seats for their governing houses. Lets see your next argument is that hopefuls try to "beat the system," aren't they really using the best strategy within the system? I mean if a football player runs a punt-fake, are they really beating the system? aren't they just good strategists? Also hey remember 1982 and 1986, yeah a majority of California voters put Regean in the white house. So your next beef is that you get attention during the primary but not in the final election. Well here in Wisconsin I haven't seen one ad, not one. That's my point, some states influence the primary, some the final election. It makes candidates have to be more versatile and it sends them through more electing "filters," forcing them to get elected on many issues with a wide spanning support group. In regards to people voting for party, yes that is true, it's called an information shortcut. Voters use them a lot. This requires the parties to maintain a certain image. When that image falters (such as with Bush), the party loses (look at the republican seat losses in 2006). Regardless of how the electoral college system works, voters will use information shortcuts. Oh and ps. the most effective campaign ads are specifically negative ads which make reference to opponents voting records, that seems like pretty valuable information for the voting public. You are certainly right that large states get the shaft on the deal, just like they do in the senate. But let us remember that it is extremely rare that the winner of the electoral college doesn't win the majority (or plurality in some cases). More than changing the result, the electoral college tends to alter the strategy of campaigning. And that is good for a majority of Americans and hurts a few.
The Electoral college should remain the method of electing presidents in the United states.

The Electoral College requires candidates to balance priorities based on differing state interests. James Madison warned of the oppression of the majority, whereby a majority of the population pushes a singular interest upon the whole. By dividing up the process of electing through the states, Presidential hopefuls must align themselves with multiple constituent groups. Furthermore, the Electoral college promotes personal contact through stump speeches. If we removed the Electoral college, politicians would stay in high population areas (New York, California, DC, Chicago) and continue to try rounding up all the votes in those areas. Instead, with the current process, a candidate rounds up a secure majority within a state and moves on to another state, where they must tackle new issues and a new constituent base. Lastly the current system promotes campaigning in moderate or split states (such as here in WI), thus successful candidates must support a more moderate stance, if we were lead by presidents on the political periphery then policy changes would be more extreme from one administration to another.
It's time for the workers of the world to unite

Thank you for posting the debate. I am new to debate.org so I am not sure if the first round is meant for acceptance only. However, since Pro hasn't mentioned anything to that effect, I will start refuting his points right away. Also, I am assuming that you are talking about any country in general and not the UK in particular where you are located. I understand that it can be frustrating when large corporations exert a lot of power over ordinary people but we must remember that not only does everyone have a chance to start a business but also that businesses compete against each other and that lessens the power they have. Nationalization of key services will reduce competition among those services. Banks will no longer be fighting against each other offering the lowest interest rates to attract customers. Schools/Universities will not be offering additional financial aid and superior education and trying to undercut each other and get the best students. The competitive spirit will be destroyed. Funding of political parties by the state does two things. First it reduces the incentive to actively campaign. The ability to gather funds is an important skill for a politician to have and funding should never be guaranteed to them. In the United States, it is usually the person running for president who has to raise funds. They need good leadership and public speaking skills to do that. Secondly, if the state provides funding, taxes would increase which is not a good outcome for people who are not interested in paying extra taxes to fund political parties. Trust funds are passed on from one person to another. If someone earns a large amount of money and want to pass it along to their children, they should be able to do so without government intervention. Again, one of the basic principles of capitalism is minimal governmental interference in private matters. Opening public libraries etc free of charge will cause the government to lose revenues that it has been getting so far. The result of this would be increased taxation to cover it. Ordinary people's income taxes would increase. I would not want to pay additional taxes for libraries, parks and museums if I never use them. Free market economies are characterized by low taxation and increasing taxes is leaning toward socialism. It would of course be ideal if workers show solidarity toward each other. However, in a culture like that of the United States, corporate workers will look out for themselves over others, so such a socialist state will never work.
It's time for the workers of the world to unite

It is time for the proletariat to unite and rise up against their bourgeoisie oppressors in order to dismantle those social and political instruments of power the ruling classes employ in order to promote privilege and patronage amongst themselves, thus preventing the working classes from shaping their own destinies and denying them the opportunity to fully enjoy the fruits of their labours. In the first phase of this process, the following measures would be implemented: * The full nationalisation of key services, utilities and industries; such as: health, education, agriculture, sanitation, public transportation, energy (production and supply) and banking. * The funding of political parties to become the responsibility of the state and private or corporate donations to politicians or their parties will be outlawed. In addition, all media organisations, such as television broadcasters and newspaper publishers must be licensed and obliged to provide politically impartial coverage of events at home and abroad. * Everybody able to work will be strongly incentivised financially to do so, meaning no welfare payments for those fit and able to work but choose not to do so, and a punitive tax on unearned income from trust funds and other financial instruments that allow aristocrats and other over-privileged people to live on inherited or gifted wealth. * All public libraries, gardens and museums should be open to the public free of charge. These goals can only be achieved if the workers, meaning everybody that is in paid employment, show solidarity on an international level and form a powerful movement to force change in their respective countries. Thank you.
Atheism is the default position

My opponent admits "As a baby, you are basically a blank slate". I agree! That's why a baby LACKS A BELIEF IN GOD, My opponent goes on to say " It is not that you don't believe in God as a baby, its that you don't even know what a God is! "BINGO! Once again I agree! If you don't know what a god is, you lack the belief in a god! But wait. .. my opponent also claims, "If Atheism is the lack of belief in God, that means you must first understand what you don't believe in. "Well, does a baby with a blank slate understand what they don't believe in? No. But a baby is an atheist because it lacks the belief in a god. My opponent also contradicts himself. First he says "how you grow up is completely up to you. "By then he says "Theist family? You will most likely become some form of a theist. "Well then it's not "completely up to you" if it depends on what your family is! It's either what you completely decide on your own or it's what your family is. I should completely ignore what my opponent said in the first round, because it was against the rules, but I will point out that Atheism is not a religion. Atheism has no dogma, no world view, no holy book, no central authority, no deity to pray to or worship, no rituals, and no tenants. So how can it be a religion? !? I'd like to ask my "atheist" opponent what deity he prays to, what holy book he reads and what rituals he performs, since he claims atheism is a religion. To answer my opponent's question, "why can't Catholicism be the default position? "My opponent already answered that! He said "As a baby, you are basically a blank slate" so you don't believe in a god, which means you are born an atheist. One more thing: My opponent said "There is no proof that atheism is spontaneously created in the beginning. "I agree! Atheism is not created! It's the default position. It doesn't need to be created! That's why there's no proof that it is created!
Atheism is the default position

My mind just got ahead of itself. But back to what you said previously. If Atheism is the lack of belief in God, that means you must first understand what you don't believe in. As a baby, you are basically a blank slate and how you grow up is completely up to you. You don't know anything. It is not that you don't believe in God as a baby, its that you don't even know what a God is. Atheist Family? You will most likely become an atheist. Theist family? You will most likely become some form of a theist. Your religion is solely based on your experience and that can turn you towards a belief you feel is right and believable to you. I would consider the definition a little vague for this debate and consider other evaluations in the upcoming rounds. Just advice, so we can have a straight forward debate about the topic rather than debating what the topic actually is.
Atheism is the default position

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists. That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist. It's that simple.
Atheism is the default position

Atheism is like a religion of itself. I, being an atheist myself, believe this. With that said, if Atheism is a default "setting" (for lack of better terms), why can't Catholicism be the default position? I started out as a believer; going to church, listening to sermons and praying. It wasn't until I connected the dots with other religions and found out asking: what makes our God special over others? So could you say I was born a Christian? If what you state is true, then you are assuming that everyone is an atheist upon birth. I don't believe that. I believe that atheism is not a default position. There is no proof that atheism is spontaneously created in the beginning. I think it is a religion of itself and deserves as much preaching and acceptance as Christians proclaim their beliefs to be.
human resource an asset or an expense

I would answer by restating what I said before ........."Anything or anybody can be an asset or a liability. Do you give more than you get? RU and asset or a liability? So human resource can be either." You "think" you are an asset, and maybe you are. In fact I hope that you are. But do you "think" you are an asset because you "feel" that you are? Or is there a performance item which proves the point. Have you invented something great or grown the company? I have worked for a number of companies, and would periodically and independently assess my asset / liability to my employer. It was often quite a revelation. Know too that others in the company will make the same assessment of you. Again I restate "Anything or anybody can be an asset or a liability. Do you give more than you get? RU and asset or a liability? So human resource can be either."