BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I think they should stop giving welfare if the person is able to work.

1. I would like to point out that yes it would be idealistic that once a job is found that social welfare would no longer be needed and they can stop using it. But this is reality not ideology. 2. Such jobs such as you stated does not pay well at all think in the $7.00-$8.00 or lower range. I will take this on my own state which minimum is $7.25. Per say a single mother with 2 children making the minimum wage at McDonald's. Which is $580 bi-weekly, $1160 a month. With tax maybe $1000 a month to support herself and 2 children. That from where I am located cheapest 2 bd apt would go around $800 a month with utilities $1000+. So how will they live? Even if she worked 2 jobs who will watch the children? Food, clothing, medical, daycare while he/she works? They can't, which is why we have these welfare programs. Would it be better if it was a she to go prostitute herself? Sell drugs? Since with these you can make a large amount of money in a short time. If there was no welfare program than social service would more than likely come and take the children for not being in a suitable environment. The welfare program while some a very small amount do abuse this system, but for the majority is a necessity for being able to take care of there family. Have you ever spoken to someone who is on welfare??? Do you think if you spoke to them about it there chest will puff up with pride and speak to you in a dignified way? No they won't alot didn't choose this type of way of depending on the government. Some that I know had a death in the family which was the bread winner, accident that prevent them from working, natural causes that prevents them from working, and so on. If you think that welfare is not needed once a job is attained you are gravely mistaken. These are assistance program in which to assist the lower wage income families so that they can provide and survive.
Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide

"It is also less time consuming than taking one body at a time and putting it inside a cremating unit. Even if there were multiple cremating units, you would will still need to put one body at a time and put them in the units[.]"Again: Upsize the cremating units, and you can get much more efficiency. It does not need to be on an individual basis any more than a bulldozer does. Because neither of us has really quantified this debate, it's impossile to vote on this issue either way."... keeping in mind that each unit is expensive. Is a bulldozer expensive? Sure, but for one huge, or even two or three big holes, it is less expensive because you are only going to have a couple machines for the digging. You will have multiple machines with cremation. Multiple cremation units themselves, and you will need transportation for the bodies as well."First off, reapply upsizing.Second off, reapply the cost of removing land from use.Third off, reapply the cost-saving of being able to just burn them alive, saving on bullets.Fourth off, apply the cost of needing security to keep the site secret, while cremation saves."You will also need to consider that if we have cremation units, you will need someone to operate it, so there is a labor cost."Roughly comparable, I think. No real way to weigh between them."You will also need to consider a maintenance cost, because every machine that anyone has ever owned has broken down or needed new parts. This also includes cleaning the cremation units after a while. You need a proper cleaning to keep a proper temperature and an even cremation, and a quick one, and I can personally testify that they need to be clean for proper use."Yes. Heavy equipment also needs maintenence and repair."This debate did not have enough time to grow. I take blame for not setting up this debate properly, and I wish I could restart this debate and have a full blown debate. Thank you for accepting the debate regardless."It's fine, I guess, but why did you bring up this debate topic in the first place? Genocide is just a bit of an interesting topic to talk about.You're going to vote Neg/Con/Against on this issue, because I am winning on the Size issue, on the Energy issue, and on the Secrecy issue, while my opponent has only contested the Cost and Labor issues, which don't flow either way in a major way. As such, I am winning on some issues while my opponent is winning on none, and we will not support mass graves in times of genocide.
Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide

With improved technology, removing ground and refilling it is not as expensive or labor intensive. It is also less time consuming than taking one body at a time and putting it inside a cremating unit. Even if there were multiple cremating units, you would will still need to put one body at a time and put them in the units, keeping in mind that each unit is expensive. Is a bulldozer expensive? Sure, but for one huge, or even two or three big holes, it is less expensive because you are only going to have a couple machines for the digging. You will have multiple machines with cremation. Multiple cremation units themselves, and you will need transportation for the bodies as well. You will also need to consider that if we have cremation units, you will need someone to operate it, so there is a labor cost. You will also need to consider a maintenance cost, because every machine that anyone has ever owned has broken down or needed new parts. This also includes cleaning the cremation units after a while. You need a proper cleaning to keep a proper temperature and an even cremation, and a quick one, and I can personally testify that they need to be clean for proper use. This debate did not have enough time to grow. I take blame for not setting up this debate properly, and I wish I could restart this debate and have a full blown debate.
Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide

2C1. Size: Cremation takes effectively no space, other than the machinery, because the disintegrated parts are merely a pile of dust. Whereas with mass graves you need to have the whole body stored somewhere, which is significantly larger and will only increase as the number of people increases. 2C2. Labor: Cremation requires only putting the bodies in, turning on, and taking the ash out. Mass graves require digging a massive hole, getting each body there, pushing each body in, and filling over the whole site. 2C3. Cost: The cost of one one-person cremation machine and one, say, backhoe are relatively equivalent, at anywhere from $10,000-100,000. No real ground either way. But with cremation, you only need one machine (preferable scaled upwards, perhaps 1052 or however many the local train can carry in 1 car) that can be reused, while in mass graves you need many machines and a way to transport the bodies, while you are also taking land out of agricultural use for quite awhile. 2C4. Energy: It's probably more energy efficient to dig holes than cremate in the short run. But as the size of the trench increases, the energy necessary gets increasingly larger, as you need to dig deeper and take land out of potential agricultural use. Besides, instead of needing to shoot/gas/kill the innocents, you can just soundproof the chamber and burn them inside it, saving on time and labor. 2C5. Secrecy: A gigantic mass grave is going to attract attention. Another smokestack? No. Do you really want the populace/UN to know about your war crimes?
Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide

Time's of genocide is defined as any ruler, most likely a dictator, committing acts of genocide. Genocide being a killing of a large sum of people for some reason or another having something in common with each other. Mass graves is defined as putting dead bodies inside the same burial ground after their execution. Efficient meaning it is both cost, labor, and space effective. It is not impossible to win this debate. Simply try to say and defend another kind of disposal of bodies that is more efficient than simply burying all the dead people.
Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide

I accept.First off, please define "times of genocide".Second off, please define "mass graves". Note: If you define it as ANY form of disposing of the bodies, then the debate will be effectively impossible for me to win, and is basically pointless to win.Third off, please define "efficient". What type(s) of efficiecy are we looking for here? Monetary? Sanitary? Spatial?Fourth off, am I correct in that we're assuming that genocide exists, and are merely trying to deal with its effects (namely, the bodies of thousands-milions-billions of mostly-innocents) in the best way? Because arguing against genocide versus for a different kind of disposal are very different things, one of which is rather easier than the other.
Debate.org Shouldn't Ask For Cell Phone Numbers For Confirmation.

First: I'll state that this is a one statement debate and whoever wishes to argue should be sure to prepare all the points they wish to have stated to back up their side. Second: My Statement Debate.org has no need for our cell phone numbers to text a confirmation code considering they already demand confirmation via e-mail. It is merely a means to collect more data on its members so it can sell it off to others to make profit. As stated in their privacy statement under Operational Communications: "These Operational Communications may also contain commercial messages, banner ads, newsletters, information, special offers and other promotional materials for Debate.org or third parties' goods or services. " Furthermore, the need to confirm a cell/mobile phone number keeps those who legitimately have no cell phone and don't desire to own one from being able to participate on the site. This goes against their very mission statement that states: "The mission of Debate.org is to be the premier website for online debates across thousands of topics. To ensure success, Debate.org offers a platform for formal debates and opens communication for all who wish to participate. Moving forward, the website will expand to allow debates in multiple formats increasing the opportunity for members to interact, debate, and discuss important issues. " By having a need for a cell phone to have a confirmation code texted to you only hinders their very mission of providing a place for all those who wish to participate. It would be in Debate.org's best interest to remove this requirement. In fact, it might be in their best interest to allow for anonymous posts to debate without the need of an account at all. But that is another debate to be had.
Debate.org Shouldn't Ask For Cell Phone Numbers For Confirmation.

"Debate.org has no need for our cell phone numbers to text a confirmation code considering they already demand confirmation via e-mail. It is merely a means to collect more data on its members so it can sell it off to others to make profit."Thats a blatant lie.... The reason that DDO asks for a cell phone number is to ensure that the person joining the site is legit and not another dummy account by someone already on the site. People can make email accounts super easy and super fast, and possibly use them to make dozens of accounts on the site and vote for themselves in debates they didnt rightfully win. Cell Phone verification keeps multiaccounting down. "Furthermore, the need to confirm a cell/mobile phone number keeps those who legitimately have no cell phone and don't desire to own one from being able to participate on the site."These days you have to be 8 years old to not have a cell phone, and those who dont have cell phones dont tend to stick around on the site anyways so not much is being to those who dont have cell phones. "By having a need for a cell phone to have a confirmation code texted to you only hinders their very mission of providing a place for all those who wish to participate."But those who dont have cell phones usually dont stay around and participate anyways since they are usually too young and uninterested. And on the other hand, cell phone verification actually gives this place some integrity by not letting it become overrun with dummy accounts and spammers which keeps in touch with their mission of providing a good place for debate and discussion. "It would be in Debate.org's best interest to remove this requirement."Anyone who knows of people using multiaccounts to boost their own debates and get wins knows that this isnt true at all.
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

You say that this concept fulfills a democracy. Yet this concept makes the oppressed worse off especially miniorites since they can not participate fully in this democratic society when they are illiterate. To transform a society one needs to.. "not to "integrate' them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves." (Page 2, paragraph 4). It is clearly still an issue today if miniorites are the ones to be blamed supposively for Obama winning the elections in 2012. Some politicans have even created ways to ban miniorites in Newark from voting. Thus banking education fails. If our school systems also do not have a set curriculum, and all are learning different information. Then one can not fully communicate, and or realate with the world. Furthermore The problem posing education creates dialoge and authenticity. Students that use Problem Posing education, essentially makes unrecognized elements stand out, of which are then reflected upon. When one is most conscious of their surroundings one can single out and reflect upon them. One is having a conscious experience rather than a "conscious of"."That which had existed objectively but had not been perceived in its deeper implications (if indeed it was perceived at all) begins to "stand out,"" Thus, men begin to single out elements from their "background awarenesses" and to reflect upon them. These elements are now objects of men's consideration, and, as such, objects of their action and cognition" (Page 6, Paragraph 4).
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

When speaking of literacy what I"m referring to is cultural literacy. National unity is dependent on this as a true way to achieve social equality. Hirsch stated "As the universal second culture, literate culture has some of the common currency for social and economic exchange in our democracy, and the only available ticket to full citizenship. Getting one's membership card is not tied to class or race. Membership is automatic if one learns the background information and the linguistic conventions that are needed to read, write and speak effectively." (8.5) You argued that Hirsch"s theory of education is oppressive, when it actually paves the way for true democracy. Why do you think slave traders, plantation owners, and outright racists were against teaching blacks even basic literacy? It was a way to keep them from acquiring knowledge and to maintain power and control over them. "Literate culture is the most democratic culture in our land: it excludes nobody; it cuts across generations and social groups and classes." (Hirsch 8.4) Not educating our country in this unified, homogenous manner is a setup for cultural fragmentation and a recipe for regional conflict and internal collapse.
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

Although one does need to know basic knowledge of words to develop their thinking it is essentially their knowledge that they try to retain that is oppressing themselves. They are not asking questions, and developing a consciousness to develop. Verbalistic lessons, reading requirements, the methods for evaluating "knowledge," the distance between the teacher and the taught, the criteria for promotion: everything in this ready-to-wear approach serves to obviate thinking. (page 3 paragraph 5). Hirshe states that his students are not ignorant when one asked about Latin America and the latin culture. But if they weren"t ignorant in knowing cultural knowledge then why are they not realizing that these two do not connect. The teacher is obviously only teaching them things they need to know but nothing else and not connecting with worldy views.. In conclusion can one really learn. "Some basis of commonly shared information is necessary to fully extract meaning from" like you say
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

Yeah but you still have to learn to read and write. Then you can establish a foundation of linguistic, cultural, historical knowledge to which you can compare and contrast all your future experiences to. One has to learn to read before he or she can read to learn, and even in the problem-posing method of education there are reading materials. In order to study any subject, background information is required. Hirsch said, "To grasp the words on a page we have to know a lot of information that isn't set down on the page." (2.3) Some basis of commonly shared information is necessary to fully extract meaning from, or convey meaning through, words. Hirsch also states "the explicit words are just surface pointers to textual meaning in reading and writing. The comprehending reader must bring to the text appropriate background information that includes knowledge not only about the topic but also the shared attitudes and conventions that color a piece of writing." (6.2)
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

Liberation from the oppressing teacher is one of the key factors to the success of Problem Posing education. It rejects the banking concept of education and produces a consciousness to the world of which one can truly transform, develop, and succeed."Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men upon their world in order to transform it" (Page 4, Paragraph 5).In the problem posing education one embodies true knowledge and can apply it to the world. It allows one to think outside of the box, and creates liberation in the person and the teacher. They are both learning from each other which can constitute true knowledge. There is clearly a major flaw with the banking concept of education if most businessman as Hirsche states can not communicate affectively which the banking concept doesn"t allow and the problem posing education does allow.. There is a flaw in education if this is the case. You say, "Hirsch"s theory of education establishes an infrastructure for true growth." However, the Banking concept only creates an oppressing situation where the teacher dominates and the student is the disposable that just takes in the information and never learns. They are close minded in some ways and cant create true growth within themselves and creates a static reality.
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

Pedagogy is the method and practice of teaching. Based on this definition, Hirsch"s traditional, narrative approach or "banking system" of education trumps Freire"s more progressive (problem-posing) views. A modern society functions most effectively with a system of roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, etc. used to transport goods. Likewise, a modern society functions most effectively when a cultural and intellectual infrastructure is in place and is used to transfer ideas. Hirsch"s theory of education establishes an infrastructure for true growth. "The function of national literacy is to foster effective nationwide communications. Our chief instrument of communication over time and space is the standard national language, which is sustained by national literacy." (Hirsch 2.1)
Euthanasia

"If a person had excruciating pain and was lying in bed and wanted to die because of that pain, Palliative care can allieviate that pain. The die naturally, And painlessly. " From what I understood from that statement is it simply just reduces the amount of pain until they become deceased from their injury/illness. This means that they still are waiting on their death bed until that day comes. I don"t see a problem with fast forwarding that day through the use of euthanasia, Again with consent from all people involved. You listed the alternatives to euthanasia, "For pain it's palliative care. For loss it would be psychological counselling. For the stress of death from cancer there is psycho-oncology. For fear of being a burden theirs a lot of education and counselling that can be provided to allieviate this dreadful feeling. " You also said in your earlier statement, "I define Euthanasia as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. " So what in the list shown above that can help a person in an irreversible coma? Now obviously a person in a coma can not consent to euthanasia and it is possible for the patient to come out of said coma, But at least this provides the family with a last resort to finally put the patient at peace. We should always provide alternatives for anyone in hospital. I do not think that euthanasia is necessarily a good thing. Again, Euthanasia should only be a last resort. Making it illegal only slims the patients and family members options if any alternatives were unable to work.
Euthanasia

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the concept of palliative care. It's actually a wonderful alternative to Euthanasia. Palliative care actually alleviates pain. If a person had excruciating pain and was lying in bed and wanted to die because of that pain, Palliative care can allieviate that pain. The die naturally, And painlessly. Palliative care doesn't save the life, Just allieviates the pain. Although if a persons life expectancy was incorrect palliating them at least gives them the time to understand the fault made by the doctor. The problem is, The majority of people who want euthanasia themselves actually don't want it because of the pain. The majority want it because of other forms of suffering, Such as being a burden or the feeling of loss. Even because of these problems euthanasia shouldn't be allowed. Each other these forms of suffering can be allieviated or coped with in one way or another. For pain it's palliative care. For loss it would be psychological counselling. For the stress of death from cancer there is psycho-oncology. For fear of being a burden theirs a lot of education and counselling that can be provided to allieviate this dreadful feeling. Once people recieve services like this they become much less likely to want to be euthanised. Death is not a treatment, And life is never a disease. Sources https://ww2. Health. Wa. Gov. Au/~/media/Files/Corporate/general%20documents/Health%20Networks/WA%20Cancer%20and%20Palliative%20Care/Cancer/Psycho-Oncology-Model-of-Care. Pdf http://palliativecare. Org. Au/expert-opinion-the-euthanasia-debate http://www. Abc. Net. Au/news/2017-05-26/calls-to-prioritise-palliative-care-before-passing-euthanasia/8561960 https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434784/
Euthanasia

As I stated in the earlier round, Euthanasia should be a highly strict process. If there is another way of saving their life such as palliative care then that option should be given. Euthanasia should only be a last resort for those who no longer have any options left. Would you rather someone to just lay on their hospital bed for a few weeks in extreme pain, Or provide them with a lethal injection so they no longer receive that extreme pain. Again, As I stated before, It should be a highly strict process. In order for someone to be euthanased they should have consent from all people involved. This includes any family members, Doctors, Maybe friends, And the patient themself if they are able to. This would also stop doctors from potentially murdering the patient then blame it on euthanasia.