BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

And thus, I will be adding an additional argument, explaining why patriotism should indeed be taught to children in school. First, let me make sure we are clear on definitions: Resolved - adjective - determined, explained, or answered. Patriotism - noun - the love of one's country or nation. Taught - transitive verb - caused to know something. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (In this definition, I think we can agree that this "something" directly refers to the noun "Patriotism. ") Children - noun - young people. School - noun - a building where young people receive education. So, indeed, I affirm the resolution. "Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school. " As each of the definitions provided are equivalent the their respective words, the transitive property would dictate the following to be upheld by the Pro stance: "Determined, explained, or answered: The love of one's country or nation should be "taught" to young people in a building where young people receive education. " I will hereby be switching my main argument to the following: I do think that the love of one's country or nation should be taught to young people in school. However, let us analyze the word "taught. " "Taught," as primarily defined by Merriam-Webster, is "caused to know something. " So let us be clear. Causing someone to know something (past tense) does not mean they should abide by it, or even like it. All that is being done is that something (patriotism, as defined) is being caused to be known by the young people. And thus, I fail to see any harm done with this. Causing children to know patriotism is giving them a valuable life lesson: that patriotism is not necessarily a good thing. Causing them to know patriotism means they learn about it from an informative standpoint, not a persuasive one. That is, they would be "taught" it. By no means does the resolution imply that children would be forced to abide by or dictated to that patriotism is good. So what does it mean to "know" something? Know - verb - to be familiar or acquainted with, be cognizant or aware of a fact or a specific piece of information, be aware of the truth of something. Being caused to "know" "the love of one's country or nation" is, if I may reiterate, not persuading them to think patriotism is good or bad. It is just causing them to know what it is, on an informative basis. Shaping the viewpoints and opinions of children, therefore, has little to do with the resolution in which we were dealt. Ergo, I see no problematic issues with the resolution. Thus, I continue to affirm the resolution that patriotism should be taught to children in school. That ought to be sufficient for the time being. And I look forward to the remaining debate.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Greetings and welcome. Just like my opponent, I shall start things off briefly, but reserve the right to present additional contentions in the next round should I find the need to. In terms of my opponent's definition of patriotism, I wholeheartedly agree with it, thus I have no objections against it. Let us now move on to his case. RE:"The reason that this should be taught to chidlren in school is that (a) teaching this definition to future generations of chidlren will be beneficial to the welfare of the United States . . ." Hold on. Lets stop right there. Basically, PRO is saying that students should be taught to love their country or nation. THIS IS SAVAGELY LUDICROUS! What if we were talking about Nazi Germany . Should the citizens really have been trained to love their country? Should they really have been trained to tolerate the slaughter of the Jews as well as the racist practices of Adolf Hitler (who is merely one of the many representatives of countries who have done some pretty depraved things). This is PRECISELY what my opponent is propagating. My example serves to demonstrate that impressionable young minds (a nation's future) should not be trained to love their country and respect it as this can simply result in justification and toleration of horrible things. Instead, I propose an alternative; instead of teaching students to love their country, how about country simply works for the student's love? A leader should earn the love and respect of his comrades. A parent should nurture his/her child so that the child may in return love him/her.. What countries ought to do is set a positive image for itself as well as place a great deal of effort into actually EARNING its citizen's respect rather than reliance on training/coercion. This gives people the option as well as motivation to love their country and reduces government corruption. RE:" (b) this is a time of development in one's mind and thought. Teaching one to love their country is teaching them to respect it." As insisted above, forced respect can lead to nasty consequences. More importantly, it fringes on liberty. Let people have a choice so that they may see whether there is good enough reason to respect their country. That way, there is far less chance of people respecting the many deplorable practices of countries in the past. RE: "This boosts, mainly, their nation's societal welfare and national security." If PRO has no interest in providing a premise for his claims, I ask that you dismiss them without hesitation. And that'll do it for now.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Greetings, and welcome. This round will be brief. I contend that patriotism should indeed be taught to children in school. Patriotism will be defined as the "love of one's country or nation." The reason that this should be taught to chidlren in school is that (a) teaching this definition to future generations of chidlren will be beneficial to the welfare of the United States, (b) this is a time of development in one's mind and thought. Teaching one to love their country is teaching them to respect it. This boosts, mainly, their nation's societal welfare and national security. I affirm. I can get further in depth in future rounds. Oboeman.
Throwing Yourself Off A Cliff Is Fun

This is a simple debate. Please stop accusing me of doing things I'm not doing. In this site, most people debate serious matters, i see you bebate a lot, and are very good at what you do. What i am trying to do is to provide and entertaining debate in which i am hoping you will participate in. Obviously, i underestimated you, and thought you would actually be able to understand a bit of a joke.
Throwing Yourself Off A Cliff Is Fun

Let me state my definitions: Throwing: To Propel Something Into A Pie Yourself: Somebody Else Off: Inside Of A: Pineapple Cliff: An olden day war veteran Is: Banana Fun: Edible So let me revise the topic: Propelling somebody else inside of a pineapple war veteran banana pie is edible. Let me clarify. This is not a trick. This is literal. Literally falling off a cliff into a sharp pile of rocks and dieing a very painful death by breaking every bone in your body. However please incorporate the new revised topic into this :D i. My first point is simple. Dieing is generally not fun. ii. My opponent is a mutated nazi. Therefore on behalf of him; i forefeit johngriswald. "But suddenly, out of no where, the hero arrives!! He gets out a laser gun and shoots everyone in the face.". <--- This was originally posted by johngriswald. Although it is a great analogy, it lacks flavour. Add works like : Poop & Diaper. Maybe even Poopy! This gives it a whole new outlook at life. Another thing you posted: "I Am a nazi and i like eating babies, vote for the opponent". While that is generally true, please have pity on yourself. My source for all of this? www.clubpenguin.com Now for my opponnent :)
Throwing Yourself Off A Cliff Is Fun

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: fun, cliff, entertaining, and set up a strict standard for the what fun, a cliff, and entertaining are and what they aren't. Make it clear where to draw the line between fun and not fun, entertaining and not entertaining, and a cliff, and not a cliff (should be a standard for feet). These lines should be clearly distinguishable. For example if I was to bring up another instance of someone jumping off a high natural landscape, I should be able to easily fit them into a category of either cliff/non-cliff, fun/no fun and entertaining/not entertaining based upon your established guideline. Furthermore on what weight do we put the entertainment/fun factor. Are the entertainment/fun of both parties equal? What if those watching experience negative fun/displeasure? Does this subtract from the overall fun that is being judged? How do you measure fun if this is so? This way I can determine whether the total amount of fun is positive(fun) or negative(not fun). The same thing goes for entertaining. Also are you attempting to use this vague affirmation as a trap? Obviously if you were attempting to do so, you would change the meaning of jumping off a cliff to bungee jumping or something similar where the jumper does not die but instead peacefully lands. The entire concept of how the jumper lands is entirely unclear and is only meant to be assumed which is I why I ask my opponent if he/she wrongfully attempts to use this part of the affirmation as a trick/trap for me. If it is so, then I warn you that you will most likely lose conduct as your affirmation assumes a deadly ending and by changing it you are changing the debate. I do not find making vague debates and setting them as traps for those who legitimately debate amusing Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why jumping off a cliff lives up to your definition of entertaining, and fun. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why it is fun/entertaining. As the person who created the resolution and are Pro, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the jumping off a cliff is fun and entertaining. You should also give your opinion on other examples of jumping off of other landscapes which are very high. Are they fun/entertaining as well? Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Michigan State is a better football team than Michigan.(All Time)

It would seem my opponent has spent half of his last round defending Michigan.As my opponent has stated, on my behalf:-Michigan has a better Head-To-Head record vs. Mich St.-Michigan has a better All-Time Win Pct. over Mich St. (.732 to .598) Now according to the Wikipedia sources both my opponent have I have used, this is the breakdown of key statistics:Michigan Wolverines:National Titles: 11Conference Titles: 42Heisman Trophy Winners: 3Concensus All American Players: 78Michigan State Spartans:National Titles: 6 (4 recognized)Conference Titles: 10 (8 of which were part of the Big Ten)Heisman Trophy Winners: 0Concensus All American Players: 31Currently in the NFL Michigan has 33 players active on NFL rosters, while Mich. St only has 24.Michigan has been to 43 Bowl Games, with a record of 20-23.Mich. St has been to 24 Bowl Games with a record of 10-14My opponents two points FOR Mich St. is a period of "dominance" over Michiga, simply because Mich. St had more wins over Michigan.To that, I respond Michigan has had dominance over Michigan St for the entirety of their Rivalry.Also Michigan went on a bearly 4 Decade stretch of dominance from 1970-2007 with a record of 30-8 over Mich. St.Michigan held a 14-game win streak over Mich. St at one point, and Mich St. has only held a 4-game win streak over Michigan.All-Time Record:68-33-5.Lastly, my opponent claims this year's performance should be factored into the discussion. To this I respond, 100 years of dominance over Michigan St is not at all shaken by 6 games of this current season. A season in which these two teams have not even played against each other yet.The history speaks for itself as Michigan is the much more dominant team over Michigan St, as well as a much more dominant team over the NCAA than Michigan St. is.
Michigan State is a better football team than Michigan.(All Time)

Michigan vs. State first game year 1898. The last game played was 2013. The total number of games, as of right now is 106. Even though altogether Michigan did beat State with 68 wins, 33 loses and 5 ties. Altogether Michigan has, out of 1,267 games, 910 wins and 321 loses. State has a total of 1228 games played. They have 658 wins and 437 loses. I'll be the first to admit Michigan does have a higher win/lose ratio for all time but State has more titles than Michigan with 18 for State and 11 for Michigan. At the start of the trophy game series, Michigan Stated began a nearly two-decade period of dominance. From 1950-69 MSU had a 14-4-2 against the Wolverines. Finally this season Michigan has a 2-4 win ratio and State has a 4-1 win ratio. . http://www.mgoblue.com... . http://www.msuspartans.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Michigan State is a better football team than Michigan.(All Time)

I gladly accept, and will be taking the Side of Con. I will be arguing that the Michigan Wolverines Football Team is better than the Michigan State Spartans Football team, throughout the entire course of their existences. Michigan Wolverines Football (Founded 1927)Michigan State Spartans Football (Founded 1896)Good Luck! . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Women's Rights

Notice how pro mentions Jesus and then when I defend him, Pro completely avoids that subject and reinstates their round 1 argument. I cannot defend Islam because there is sexism in it. Christianity though, The New Testament is not sexist as I showed in my round 2 argument, it is the new covenant brought to us by Jesus, the Old Testament was made when times were different. Here is some proof that the Bible is not sexist. Jesus openly identified himself to the women at the well, he did not do this for a man. John 4:25-26'The woman said to him: "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly." Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am he."
Women's Rights

This debate is not about the fictional character of “jesus.” As there is no physical evidence for its existence, points concerning it as a PERSON are moot. The christian cult that acts on its behalf oppresses women, and THAT is what needs to go. All monotheistic religious texts were written by MEN so that MEN can have their way. When a young boy is raped by a catholic priest, we don’t say that “jesus” did it, we acknowledge that a christian did it, just as we don’t say the character of “muhammad” poured acid on Ameneh Bahrami’s face. Without the contexts set up by religious authority in the world, these actions would not thrive. Women would have much better chance at equality once no MAN could use religion as an excuse.
Women's Rights

My opponent has brought up a few points related to the Old Testament and also a point about Jesus being sexist. Firstly, Jesus was not sexist, he actually treats women differently then most men did at that time. He actually treated them with respect, which was partially unheard of at the time. A prime example is the woman at the well, when he asked her if he could drink from the well, she was in disbelief that he, a man, would even acknowledge her. An even better would be the adulteress brought to Jesus by the religious leaders, instead of condemning her as they had. He admonished her to stay away. Also, submission to a woman's husband means under the will of God, for example, coming with him to Church, otherwise she is not obligated.
Women's Rights

“eve,”created less than “adam,” is blamed concerning “the serpent” and “god” condemns women to horrible pain during childbirth and complete submission to men (gen. 3:12-3:17). They’re the property of men (ex. 20:17), unclean for 33 days after birthing a girl (lev. 12:1-5) and burned for disobeying their fathers (21:9). Raped virgins must marry their rapists, but rapists only pay fathers “50 shekels of silver (deut. 22:28-29)”. Sexist “jesus” likens “heaven” to virgins looking for a bridegroom (math. Ch. 25). Women are created in the image of MAN and inferior (I cor. 11:3-11:9). “deborah” is one of 7 female “prophets” as opposed to 48 males in the tanakh and the only female judge found there---ONE RESPECTED WOMAN still blamed for the fall.
Women's Rights

Sharia Law is an extreme form of Islam in which women have the lowest level of rights possible. It is an interpretation of the Koran by those who wish to follow it that way. Islam is definitely one of the religions that is more sexist than most, considering that women have to conceal themselves in public. But, how does this reflect on all religions? I am a Christian, in the Bible it explains that God created "Man" in his image, by man he actually meant humans in general. In the story of creation, the reason that he took a rib from adam to create eve, and not a bone from his foot or head, was to show that Adam and Eve were equal. For Example, in the Bible, a woman named Deborah became a judge and the LEADER of Israel. Sexism? I think not.
Women's Rights

Ameneh Bahrami's face was burnt off, blinding her forever, when Majid Mohavedi poured a bucket of acid on her after she declined his marriage proposal in 2004. For 7 years she had been seeking a qisa, available in Iran through Sharia Law, which would allow her have the same damage inflicted upon him for what he had done to her---"an eye for an eye," etc. As this case gained international attention in the past 7 years, Mohavedi's fate was postponed in April of 2009, and was due to be carried out in May of this year. It was again postponed, but today, Ameneh Bahrami pardoned the man. Religion is the real catalyst in this story, and it has been again swept under the rug yet again. As women in this world still presently suffer the violent misogyny brought on by the prospective works of poorly written fiction, one has to wonder if true progress for women is even possible in a world where religion is relevant. These lies produced thousands of years ago were written by MEN for MEN and they still perpetuate a MALE DOMINATED WORLD today. Eradicate religion so that Women can attain equality in the world.
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

You've argued that the animals do not need to be killed. Because poachers do not need to hunt them. Because they are not starving. Counterpoint: How would you know? You are most likely not a poacher. Nor have you provided a source from the viewpoint of one. I would argue for the opposite, given the economic struggles of the continent, typical family size of africans and also the relative difficulty of the work. Finally, the fact that such hunting still occurs means there is a need for it. As for sapience itself being a concern, I feel like I've already addressed this. Suffice to say just because they give you the feelies does not distinguish them from other animals and nor have you shown otherwise
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

Yes, we can do it. The reason I am saying we should not resonates in the moral reasons. If an assassin kills a person and makes 1,000,000 doing so, that is great for them. There is no negative effect, right? You are saying that because there is no direct consequence to humans, it is okay. That's not true. We have the capability to do it. That doesn't mean we should. Hence, "Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted." This is why we should not hunt them, and the simple answer is because these creatures A. Do not need to be killed; and B. Mourn and feel the impact of the ones we kill. Humans are supposed to be intelligent enough to have morality, and understand when it is a waste of life to kill something. When other animals kill things, aside from certain species, they usually use the kill, whether to feed themselves or other individuals. Now, humans usually use animals in the same way, or for fashion, or for the sake of killing them. That's usually fine. But when the creature you are hunting is smart, has social relations, and is similar to humans in a mental way, and you are just wasting it, or using it for unnecessary reasons, like enjoying a delicacy, for fun, or to get some cash, it is morally wrong to do so. The people in Japan who get to enjoy whaling and eating whale do it with no necessity. They aren't starving. The poachers and trophy hunters in Africa kill elephants with no necessity for it. Now, the exception in Africa is that the money from trophy hunting does help with conservation efforts, but it is still not necessary and just boosts someone's ego. The point being, we can continue to kill these animals, but it is wrong to do so. Even if they are not on the brink of extinction, there's no survival-based reason to kill them, and the world would go on just fine, and maybe even better, if we stopped.
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

Your entire justification seems to be that we shouldn't hunt sapient animals because you personally think it is wrong. Because sapience somehow changes the natural laws of the animal kingdom. What you think does not change objective truth. Humankind sits above the rest of the animal kingdom, and hence we have the right to hunt sapient animals as needed, regardless of justification. There are no negative downsides to doing so, only positives.
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

https://www.smithsonianmag.com... Wouldn't it be so cruel and offensive to deny them the enjoyment of this ancient practice? The point being, it is not necessary to survival for people to whale anymore. So, would it kill the Japanese to stop whaling? No. Would it kill the whales to continue whaling? Yes. The point is, that human lives come way before animal lives, but that human luxuries and conveniences should not come before the lives of animals, especially ones that are very similar to humans in social, emotional, and intellectual ways. So no, killing other sapient animals just for the sake of culture or money is wrong.
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

Just because an animal may have higher cognitive abilities doesn't mean we need to regard them when it comes to our own purposes. In fact, I would argue it's entirely irrelevant, because those abilities do not significantly differentiate such animals from non-sapient animals when it comes to how they interact with us, or us to them. In the specific example of whaling, the Japanese have had a long and rich culture of whaling. It would be extremely offensive and cruel to deny them a crucial part of their heritage. Why should we put the rights of animals over those of humans? Hence hunting sapient animals is entirely justified.