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

Eh screw it. I don't feel like running a theory argument. Let us proceed with the round. Judges, please extend all of my arguments across the table and take the forfeit into consideration when making your verdict as it will have most certainly affected the overall performance of this debate. Finally, if CON mentions any arguments which have not in any way been discussed in the previous rounds, you are to dismiss them without hesitation. This would include the arguments which my opponent did not provide premises for or additional responses to arguments which he did not feel the need to make in his first round. Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "patriotism should be taught to children in school" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following: 1) His entire case makes the assumption that teaching is the equivalent to coercion, but as I've shown, this is by no means true. Teaching is about providing students with knowledge. One can provide a student with knowledge on patriotism without coercing them into being patriotic. THAT is what I'm encouraging and this is BENEFICIAL. 2) Even when countered with a method that CLEARLY makes classes which teach patriotism optional, CON falls back on the erroneous argument that students would be coerced (which makes absolutely no sense if they have a CLEAR BONA-FIDE OPTION). 3) He claimed that knowledge ought to be developed naturally, but never provided a premise for this claim. In addition, most of the examples of problems which he claims were associated with patriotism merely HELPED me in establishing why it should be taught in school (much like Sex ED. Prevent problems by insuring students are informed and can make informed decisions) These are the three most clear reasons to vote PRO, but you are more than free to vote based on anything else you've seen during the actual round. Thanks for the debate.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Thanks and good luck! I negate, Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school. Patriotism defined (http://dictionary.reference.com...) ---"devoted love, support, and defense of one's country" CONTENTION 1: Freedom to establish your own opinion. ---Since this resolution imposes what should happen, I urge that we create a neutral playing field for the American's and their view upon society, and to their country in general. However, when you offer classes that teach patriotism, it is extremely bias. No matter WHAT, we will teach devotion to the country. This is something that could be fine (like in ethically sound countries), however, these countries could become bad (such as Germany). But if we teach patriotism, we will make it look good even if it is not. This does not achieve teaching students what they ought to learn. CONTENTION 2: Teach students basic politics and let them decide. ---The problem with patriotism is that it is blind. However, if you teach what makes up love for ones country (perhaps with politics), then you achieve something that is worth being invested in... smart education if you will. CONTENTION 3: We should not force respect for anything. ---When I did the pledge of allegiance in middle school, there was a kid that did not feel that he wanted to respect something that has done nothing for him. I have another kid in high school now that won't stand because there are no gay marriage rights. Why should we teach love and respect for something that may not be due love and respect? CONTENTION 4: Waste of money and NCLB focus. ---Given. CONTENTION 5: Dictatorship countries could force their people to participate in unjust actions. ---Take for example Muslim countries. You have to love your country, because your god deems it so. ‘Now go to war.' They use patriotism as fear to get what they want. -In the end, patriotism leads to misguided actions with few benefits. Patriotism should be true and honest. Something that is not accomplished if it is taught. OPPONENTS CASE C1: If you want to truly teach knowledge, then follow my 2nd contention. Don't teach how to respect one's nation, but teach about one's nation and let people form their own opinion. You ought not force people that may not want to be patriotic... TO be patriotic. C2: We ought to always try to allow people to establish their own opinion... always. But moreover, if patriotism is to be true and honest, it shouldn't be taught, but it should be established naturally. Finally, patriotism could be used in order to help dictatorship countries to follow their law no matter what (as previously stated). CROSS-EXAMINATION: Why is Patriotism inherently good? Since the resolution applies to countries in general, why should the resolution be done in countries that deserve no love? (Like Germany in WWII, or genocide effected countries, or even Muslim countries of today) What good comes about from having classes teaching patriotism, over it being developed naturally? Vote Con! Thanks and good luck!
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Changing the date is not going to bring about any long-lasting meaningful change in the emotional or physical well-being of those people who believe that calling January 26 Australia Day is the cause of their grief. It has been in the Australian history for 200 years. Many indigenous people are grateful today because they live in towns and cities, invasion day are just words, Aboriginals now go to school and work they have a much better education and are able to participate in community activities. I think its time to let go of that now and move onto the wonderful things that Australia has brought to them today.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Even though it is a day to celebrate and have fun, would you find it fun if people were dancing on the graves of your ancestors. We can't just say it was in the past because many policies that the British introduced after their arrival are still being enforced today - Aboriginal people do not have the same rights as non- Aboriginal people for example child removal rates are higher today than at any point during the Stolen Generations era. The reason why Australia Day excludes Aboriginals is because it is celebrated on a date that is a date for most Aboriginal people to mourn over the loss of their ancestors and the loss of their culture. Celebrating Australia Day on this date is terrible and it's terrible to think that politician and some Australians haven't come to their sense and had a deep thought on what actually happened to the Aboriginal people. Put yourself in the shoes of an Aboriginal and think about what it would feel like to have your child taken off you just because of your race, imagine people celebrating a day that is filled with the losses of people's lives References: Newmatilda.com 2016, CHANGE THE DATE: Read This If You Want To Know Why Australia Day Is So Offensive To Aboriginal People, ., <https://newmatilda.com...;. (accessed 20 May 2016) Brull, M 2011, Why I won't be celebrating Australia Day, ., <http://www.abc.net.au...;. (accessed 18 May 2016,) Creative Spirits n.d., Australia Day - Invasion Day, ., <http://www.creativespirits.info... >.(accessed 18 May 2016,)
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia day should stay they same because it has been that date for a very long time and would be very unusual if the date changed. Australians who see January 26 as an opportunity to celebrate with friends and family because they believe Australia is a great country to live in. Their focus is on the present and not on the past. It is not they have forgotten the past, it's just that they believe there is no value in dwelling on the past.So too Australia Day, irrespective of any historical significance of January 26, can be a day of celebration for all people in this country who are happy and proud to call themselves Australian. Celebrating this day does not preclude people from reflecting on the negatives associated with colonisation but ultimately people decide for themselves what the day will mean for them. For many it is an opportunity to celebrate that they live in this fantastic country. Those who want to be miserable on that day are free to do so but they should allow others to make it a day of celebration. Reference: "Moving Australia Day." Btn. ABC News, 9 Feb. 2016. Web. 17 May 2016. <http://www.abc.net.au...;. "There Is Much to Celebrate on Australia Day." The Drum. Ed. Chris Brown. N.p., 26 Jan. 2016. Web. 17 May 2016. <http://www.abc.net.au...;.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

The date of Australia day is not an appropriate date for Aboriginal people because it marks the beginning of Aboriginal people being dispossessed, slaughtered, losing the right to practice their culture and having their land and children taken away from them. How can a person celebrate a date that caused such terrible impacts to the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal people lost their land and their right to practice their culture and people celebrate the date that was the start of that. Why would someone celebrate day of their people being oppressed. Many people believe that we should just move on from this because it happened in the past. The problem with that statement is the Aboriginal people won"t and shouldn't forget what happened to their ancestors, nobody would be able to forget the horrid things that the Aboriginal people had to go through. Australia should be a day of mourning and loss not a day of celebration for a land that was stolen. References: Newmatilda.com 2016, CHANGE THE DATE: Read This If You Want To Know Why Australia Day Is So Offensive To Aboriginal People, ., <https://newmatilda.com...;. (accessed 17 May 2016)
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Firstly, we are doing many things to the aboriginals such as giving them funding so there is no reason y they should call Australia day Invasion day when we are helping them to live a better and healthy life. First Fleet's voyage to Australia. In the late 1700s Britain found itself with too many prisoners and not enough prisons to hold. So the First Fleet loaded up with 759 convicts, travelled to the other side of the world and set up the first Australian colony.They landed at Sydney Cove on January 26 the date it became Australia Day. They should leave Australia Day on the same date because it was the day that the British discovered Australia. If the British did not come to Australia the aboriginals will still have been much more poorer and sick
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia day , a nice day spent with family or friends, going out having fun. But Australia day isn"t all sunshine and rainbows it has quite a dark history. Australia Day excludes Indigenous Australians. In fact Australia actually commemorates the invasion of the First Fleet, that's is why some people refer to this day as "Invasion Day" or "Day of Mourning". Australia day is supposed to be a happy day not a day of mourning and its should represent all Australians and it should bring us all together as a country to celebrate how beautiful it is here "down under". That is why we should change the date of Australia day to a date that doesn't represent the day where Aboriginals had their land taken off them References: Newmatilda.com 2016, CHANGE THE DATE: Read This If You Want To Know Why Australia Day Is So Offensive To Aboriginal People, ., <https://newmatilda.com...;. (accessed 17 May 2016) Wikipedia 2016, Australia Day, .,, <https://en.wikipedia.org...;. (accessed 19 May 2016)
Xbox one vs PS4

The xbox one has the kinect a great camera with movement and voice commands, allowing you to turn on the xbox when you walk into the room. You can turn off the xbox with getting out of bed. The controllers for xbox are much better then ps4, the are more comfortable in your hand and are not all cramped up like ps4. The Xbox may be more reliable because of extra cooling. The xbox has a better user interface resembling windows, with windows 10 allowing you to stream to any windows device including xbox one so you can stream your games to your tablet etc. With xbox you get two free games a month. HDMI input to link up your skybox etc. EA access is only for xbox Xbox exclusives like HALO 5 & RISE OF THE TOMB RAIDER! Also microsoft make computers not cd players. Finally xbox always have the first DLC access for call of duty, which beats ps4 for me. Being able to get the new maps before anyone else! New Zombies maps!
Socialism is a morally superior economic system than Capitalism (Yes\Pro)

under socialism you have government intervention in everything. government regulates everything. all the wealth is re distributed which discourages people to work and think for themselves because you know that you will always get the money from somebody else. but under capitalism you have the freedom to start your own business and make a living for yourself. with the free market you have competition so products always get better. if there was no competition there would be no need to make your product better which is what you have under socialism
Socialism is a morally superior economic system than Capitalism (Yes\Pro)

This is my first debate on Debate.Org, thank you for accepting my challenge. I'm not really aware of any rules I may need? So I will just begin my argument and wait for my challenger. I GLADLY accept any tips for debate that are offered towards me. (I would prefer to keep round 1 with overarching concepts rather than specific examples) I accept the burden of proof as the one making the claim. My opening argument: Socialism as a concept enforces the ideas of the French Revolution. These ideas of Liberty, Equality, and Camaraderie have become major influences in shaping modern views of government and economy. Capitalism, by tying the value of the person to what they are able to produce, and setting these "numbers" against each other, violate all of these tenets. Moreso, if you can find moral justification from Leviathan (By Thomas Hobbs), you find that as nothing is morally wrong with murder in order to perpetuate ones existence, then Socalisim, by offering an alternative to this "dog eat dog" world, has the moral high ground.
Socialism is a morally superior economic system than Capitalism (Yes\Pro)

Thank you for explaining that to me. As I've said, this is my first debate and I appreciate the help. People may not be equal, yet many (Even conservatives) agree people are deserving some basis of living. Socalisim as a concept has been introduced into every free market in the world for the sole point that capitalism offends the moral sensibilities enough that in its undiluted form is incapable of persistence. From the New Deal in the US to English Labour Laws, no society has been untouched by socialism because of its moral impact. All of this has happened because people have an aversion to seeing inequality. The reason no society exists with serfdom today is because people hate being serfs. There won't ever be a society that is purely liberal because the disenfranchised will not permit such a society to continue. They will rebel, and when they do, there is no moral problem. When a hungry man steals food to keep himself alive, he hasn't done anything wrong. You can't condemn survival.
Socialism is a morally superior economic system than Capitalism (Yes\Pro)

I didn't attack your points because on debate.org the first round is usually for your main points and rounds 2 and 3 or however many are for rebuttal. You said that in capitalism the people with the favorable talents rise to the top but the people without the favorable talents disenfranchises them to the point that they are just serfs. This is how it should be. Under socialism, everything is pretty much just given to you but with capitalism you have to actually work to rise to the top. Yes it is true that under a capitalistic society not everybody is equal but people are not equal.
Socialism is a morally superior economic system than Capitalism (Yes\Pro)

Firstly, I would like to point out that you have not attacked any of the points of Morality, which still stand. If you would like to argue about the productivity of Socialism I will gladly have that debate with you at a later time. This debate, however, is based on the morality of the two ideas. I'll be addressing what you said in the comments, but for the purpose of this debate you should stick to disproving the idea that it is not morally superior. I will however, continue on my points. Capitalism, in it's "competition", enables there to be such inequality that classes begin to supersede each other. The point is this, if you love democracy (which I am assuming my opponent to find the most morally acceptable), you can not love capitalism, because the two are incompatible. On this I will explain. In a completely free market, those with the favorable talents will quickly rise to the top of the market. Whereas in a feudal society, it was land that gave men power, in the capitalistic, its money. The land gave the kings and lords their dominion over the serfs much like money does in capitalism. The money buys the loyalty of lobbyists to protect private interests much in the way the knight was bought with land to protect feudal interests. This disenfranchises those without the preferred talents that are not at the top, and puts them to the point where they are nothing more than serfs in a society proclaiming their freedom. So IF democracy is the most moral of government types, (Due to the EQUALITY of people in the ability to decide their fate), then Socialism is preferable to capitalism as it avoids the class problem. (And yes, there is such a thing as social democracy. Do not compare the failed Soviet States to the modern theory of Socialism. I will not stoop to replying.)
Is there a solution to the Discrimination against Attractiveness/Unattractiveness in Business World

In todays world, particularly in the Business World, when hired or getting paid higher salary, many studies show that attractive people tend to get the most benefits, and people who are perceived as unattractive tend be below the rate then the attractive people. People call it the halo effect, that we tend to trust the ones that are perceived as attractive. It all comes to biology, but is there a way to stop the discrimination against Attractiveness/Unattractiveness? Say you were to hire one person in your high end company and had to interviewed two people. Both had the exact qualifications, amazing resumes and personalities, yet one was perceived as unattractive and the other attractive, who would you hire? I am against discrimination, but curious to if there is an escape from it, if there is a solution.
Is there a solution to the Discrimination against Attractiveness/Unattractiveness in Business World

I'm not "pro discrimination" or anything, but I believe there is no way to avoid discrimination here. My argument is pretty simple. It goes that attractive people look better and tend be be taller, and usually act with more confidence. You, as a business owner, want your company to look good and sound good. And attractive people not only get hired at a higher rate with more benefits, but also tend to do better at business and sales, especially if they have the same resume as an unattractive person. While this may not be fair, it makes sense for the business. There is no reason to force a business to hire an unattractive person over an attractive person. I would probably hire the attractive person in your scenario. I'm sorry, but I would prefer to hire an attractive person over an unattractive person, and while it isn't fair, it is most likely the right choice. Also, a law against discrimination would also be bad, due to the intervention in the private sector as well as forcing a business to hire someone who they may not want. There is just no good way to force a business owner to hire an unattractive person over an attractive person. Good looks can be apart of a resume also.
Should the government outlaw same-sex marriage

Even though I use the phrase pray your gay away that doesn't mean I am against gay marriage because of religious reasons. I use that phrase because you can just pray your gay way so there's no need for there to be an issue in the first place. I'm opposed to gay marriage because it isn't marriage. If you looked up marriage you would see that it is a relationship between a man and a woman. The government should define it the same way as it is defined in the dictionary. I believe like you that America is a free country and should have a small government, so gay people should be allowed to practice their gayness because this is a free country and you should be able to do as you want. You said you want small government, not no government. What is this small government supposed to do? Regulate marriage? Yes. Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. That's what it is. You can still live together, but marriage should be reserved for same sex couples. They can get a civil union if they need it for legal reasons. No one is putting a gun to their head because they can still be gay. You make it sound like the government forces them to be straight. You said that the government doesn't have the right to regulate personal behavior? Well like I said it's not illegal to be gay, so they government wouldn't be regulating your personal behavior of being gay. You also said the government shouldn't interfere in people's lives. They're not since you can be as gay as you want and you can still get married as it is defined. Plus you can go to a church and have a unofficial marriage, just the government won't recognize it. When you challenge that you are interfering with the government. All they do is not recognize your marriage if it's not marriage. Gays are always shouting for equal rights. They have equal rights. If they want to get married they can just like everybody else.
Should the government outlaw same-sex marriage

I would like to challenge you to a debate I see you don't think gay marriage should be legal. And you want small government. Look, I believe in the bible, and it does tell me what is morally correct, but I don't believe the government has the right to put a gun against someone's head and regulate personal behavior. Regulating a persons behavior, IS big government. Do you believe that the government should have the right to interfere in people's lives? Think of it this way. What if the government wanted to regulate your personal life, and outlaw you from marrying a women! What I advocate is just letting individuals do what they want. And you'll realize when I advocate this, I'm also defending your right to practice your religion, and not having the government interfere in it. Also in the constitution, it does not say gay marriage should be illegal And this is a free country. Isn't it?
Should the government outlaw same-sex marriage

Well you heard it from the man. I guess I win. Thank you for inviting me to this debate it was very interesting. I have a feeling that you're going to get the most votes since you hold the pro-gay stance even though you pretty much gave up. Besides this issue I have a feeling you and me are going to be good allies. Hmm this gun debate you are in looks interesting. Maybe I'll take a look. Rhodesia79