BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

This debate is for 16k's debate tournament.The resolution is as follows:The united states should suspend all assistance to PakistanI will be affirming the resolution. Vmpire will be negating it.Round structure is as thus:1. Acceptance2. Cases only3-4. Rebuttals and defenseSome basic ground rules:1. Dropped arguments = concessions2. Forfeited round = 7 points to the victorLet's get this going.
Resolved: School does not prepare students enough for the future

Hello Mr Debater1993. Thank you for your final post and your wonderfully convoluted arguments. You claim that one counter example would be enough to prove the resolution false. As I explained in the previous round, this is not the case because of the word "enough" and because the sense is general."All women are prostitutes," you shout. (You had all the phrases of the world and you chose this as your example. I'm sensing you're not quite as humble and holy as you claim in your profile.) Yes, this statement is not true, and it can be falsified with one example to the contrary. That's because of the word "all". In contrast, the statement "women are prostitutes" is true and cannot be falsified by example. Similarly, the resolution "school does not prepare students enough for the future" does not contain the word "all" and cannot be falsified by example.I'm glad you think I will win because of my reliable sources. There was really nothing to stop you popping your own sources in except, ahem, lack of evidence. My personal view is that we will tie because this is a very long debate and people may not bother to read it to vote. Never mind! It's been delightful. Thank you for the debate, Mr Debater1993.
Resolved: School does not prepare students enough for the future

Imagine, Mr Debater1993, that you and I are in the Department of Education around a meeting table with a dozen or so bureaucrats. A woman is standing by a whiteboard. “School does not prepare students enough,” she says. “Enough for what?” we ask. “For the future.” Well, of course for the future. What else are you going to prepare students for? People will say “for the future” in this context if they don’t have better or more specific answer. If they mean “for college” or “for the workforce” they will say so. Above all, they will say “for the future” if they’re obliged to implement a controversial new program and they’re a bit vague about its purpose. In my day, “for the future” meant computer skills. What does it mean nowadays? Some sort of group negotiation activity, perhaps, or learning Chinese. The resolution could be “school does not prepare students enough” without any change in meaning. While we’re speaking of definitions, I notice that you used Oxford Dictionaries for your first two definitions but then switched to dictionary.com for the latter two. I wonder why. Especially as the Oxford Dictionary definition of “enough” is superior: enough (adverb): to the required degree or extent http://oxforddictionaries.com... The dictionary.com definition, which talks of a purpose, need or desire in the singular, only confuses the issue. Yes, it’s possible to state the resolution with reference to a single purpose. Let’s take parenthood as an example, since generation after generation of students leave school, become parents and find themselves woefully ill-prepared. School does not prepare students enough for parenthood. That seems clear enough. “..once a school can make a student ready for use or consideration to a degree to satisfy any need or desire in time to come. One can safely say that school does prepare students enough for the future.” But of course some schools may indeed prepare some students for their future as parents. But is that enough? Hardly. All students need to be prepared. As you implied in your response, it’s impossible for all schools to prepare all students for all possible futures. Therefore, it will always be true that school does not prepare students enough.
Resolved: School does not prepare students enough for the future

In order to fully understand this debate, there are some key terms in the Resolution that needs to be defined and they are: “school” “prepare” “enough” and “future” School: an institution for educating children. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Prepare: make (something) ready for use or consideration. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Enough: in a quantity or degree that answers a purpose or satisfies a need or desire. http://dictionary.reference.com... Future: time that is to be or come hereafter. http://dictionary.reference.com... Now the resolution can be restated as such: “An institution for educating children does not make students ready for use or consideration in a degree that answers a purpose or satisfy a need or desire for the time that is to be or come hereafter.” The first point I want to look at is that educating students is more than just teaching math, science, literature, arts etc. It takes in a wide range of things such as social graces and etiquette. When one examine the future which is said to be “time that is to be,” it can be ten minutes after now, one hour after now, one day after now, one week after now, one month after now, one year after now etc. Now when we say that an institution for educating students does make students ready for use or consideration the question that we must ask is, make them ready for use how? Or make them considerable for what? Now this question is broad and I am sure that there is no narrow and/or specific answer. When we look at enough which is to a degree that answers a purpose or satisfy a need or desire the question we ask is that what kind of purpose? Satisfy what kind of need or desire? The some institution has a wide range of things on the curriculum which caters for a wide range of things. Let us say that the desire or need is to bake a cake, sing a song, play a musical instrument, etc. How can we say that the school cannot make that student ready for use to a degree to that satisfy those needs? Because if the school cannot prepare them enough then we can say the school does not prepare them enough because those two statements are directly proportional. What if the regional educational sector of an educational system says that they are going to administer a test to all the schools in a particular region to evaluate students’ knowledge? Now in that scenario the need there is for the students to pass that test. Can we say that they school cannot make the students ready for use to a degree that they are able to pass the test which is to come, which is in the future? For if the school cannot prepare them then we can safely say that the school does not prepare students to a degree to satisfy that need. The thing is that the word “future” is not relating to anything in particular, therefore once a school can make a student ready for use or consideration to a degree to satisfy any need or desire in time to come. One can safely say that school does prepare students enough for the future.
Relationships Are Pointless

This is why we should have defined WHAT WE WERE GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT. Reasons why you should be in a relationship: - PERSONAL HAPPINESS (Big one) - SO YOU DON'T DIE ALONE (Big one) - Social Stimulation - Reproductive purposes There's much more which I will not list, but another big one is simply that; According to Psychology today, loneliness can take a huge toll on physical health, and by extension mental health. SOURCE: . https://www.psychologytoday.com... Other than that, if there is something happening in your life and you need to speak to someone about your problems, I am always open for a discussion, this site is for intelligent debate, not venting.
Relationships Are Pointless

Relationships are pointless. In the end, it's only me. I'm going to die alone. Relationships just make things more difficult. I don't want to spend my life catering to someone. I don't want to be accustomed to someone else's lifestyle. Plus, when it's my time to die, being in a relationship with someone will make it harder. I don't want to put myself down and be sad because I'm going to miss that person (which I would). I want to reflect on my life with the time I had left. I want to die with relief, not sadness. This is how I've always pictured my death: I'm in a hospital on a hospital bed. When you first walk in the door, you see a window straight ahead. If you turn left, there is the hospital bed. On the left side of the bed and on the wall, there is a large cabinet, facing the wall that the window is on. (I'm still laying on the hospital bed) To my right, there is my partner. We both know I am about to die, which is why we are there. I have minutes to live and I am saying my final goodbyes. With not that long left to live, my partner grabs and holds my hand one last time. He then stands up and begins to make his way out of the room, my eyes following him as he goes. I try to get his attention, but he doesn't turn around. I sit up and begin to cry and scream and beg for him to come back with my arms out trying to reach him. He never comes back. I eventually give up and continue to cry. All of the sudden, I remove my hands from my face and stop crying. I wipe my face and pull the hospital blankets over me and lay down and curl up with my knees to my chest. I try to relax as I wait for myself to die. Towards the end of my imagined death, I end up crying over someone.. That's not how I want my death to be. I want to die peacefully.
Why Creation should be valued over Evolution

Does evolution prove anything?The scientific method proves evolution. Therefore evolution is a theory describing reality. It is rather unclear what you mean by asking what something like that proves. I will interpret this statement as you asking me what impact evolution has on the description of reality.But first, to give you a little idea of how valuable creationism is to us, go to a scientific journal (the one I went to was 'The Journal of Cell Biology' http://jcb.rupress.org...) and type in evolution in the search bar. TO no ones surprise, there are a lot of results (2116) and to barley no ones surprise there were zero results when creationism was searched for. You can repeat this process in any other credible science journal and you will find that the creation theory of life on earth is not used in any research paper at all since it holds absolutely no predictive value and also no rational explanatory value.Back to your question, what does evolution actual prove. Evolution is the change in a gene pool concerning multiple generations of an organism. The applications of this ranges from, for example explaining and counter acting an insect's evolved resistance to pesticides, to genetically altering food for our benefit, to creating wanted chemicals through the evolution of bacteria that produce these.Through creationism we cannot produce anything of real value, except maybe a nice little story here and there. But through using the theory of evolution we can properly observe the gene pool of species and predict anything from speciation to even our own evolution. We can even create medicine through the already mentioned bacteria method and we can fight of viruses if we make utility of the predictions an evolutionary theory makes (An example of this you will probably know is the flu shot).As you can see, the value of a theory, like creationism, that is entirely wrong and cannot predict anything is rather nonexistent.
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

Before I proposed athletics helps your body stay fit and arts help your mind stay fit and keep yourslef phiscally fit. Not what he stated which was "He proposes athletics helps your body stay fit and arts help your mind stay fit.". Now when i mean it keeps your mind fit is that for 1, you ae learning, and band is a fine art and with that you have to do breathing excercises which helps your respirtory system which the respirtory system consists of: nose, nasal cavity, larynx, trachea, the bronchi, the lungs. The main Function is too keep adequte oxygen available to the body and remove carbon dioxide. So therefore, it increasres your knowledge and your breathing system.So that should prove that fine arts is better than Athletics.
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

I will start byy addressing my opponents argumentation. "Well yes i did list things but only to prove things. " Next time you should tell the audience exactly which "things" you are trying to prove. "As i must say you have put up a good argument, but Fine Arts has been here longer than Athletics and yes a round of debate is shorter than a game of basketball, but Basketball just keeps you fit and Fine Arts can keep you fit as well and increases your knowledge. " My opponent helps me win the round by saying this. He proposes athletics helps your body stay fit and arts help your mind stay fit. Thus there is no way one of these two thing ought be valued more. "I wont go into examples again, because you will just say that my last paragraph was to seem intellectually described when you think it wasn't. "I wont go into examples again, because you will just say that my last paragraph was to seem intellectually described when you think it wasn't. " Thank you for not listing things to prove things. "My last statement was in fact accurate and not false, because music which is fine arts is on television, in football staduims,dances,cars, and much more. Music is in more places than Athletics in Education in America. Also it takes acting to advertise those television shows you watch and comercials. ' This is untopical. The resolution is secondary school specific, this argument is not. Thus it should not be accepted. I contend that in secondary schools, athletics are more popular than fine arts. "My opponent has yet to state and argument to how athletics are more valued of fine arts except for the fact he has just broke dont my speech and state i have no proof. " My opponent concedes that I have undoubtably shown that I successfully broke down his speech and have successfully shown he has no proof. He then says I have not given any of my own arguments. Look to the bottom of my last speech, "contend that students ought the right to pick their own extra-curricular activities in school. Thus we come to a compromise that athletics and fine arts ought be valued the same. When looking to the resolution, in this case, you must vote CON because pro has not shown why fine arts should be valued more which is what the resoltuion asks. All he accomplished in his last speech was to name different types of fine arts which is insufficient to affirm. " THIS GOES COLD DROPPED AND NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED ACROSS THE FLOW. THE CON HAS SHOWN THAT FINE ARTS AND ATHLETICS SHOULD BE VALUED THE SAME.
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

Well yes i did list things but only to prove things. As i must say you have put up a good argument, but Fine Arts has been here longer than Athletics and yes a round of debate is shorter than a game of basketball, but Basketball just keeps you fit and Fine Arts can keep you fit as well and increases your knowledge. I wont go into examples again, because you will just say that my last paragraph was to seem intellectually described when you think it wasn't. My last statement was in fact accurate and not false, because music which is fine arts is on television, in football staduims,dances,cars, and much more. Music is in more places than Athletics in Education in America. Also it takes acting to advertise those television shows you watch and comercials. My opponent has yet to state and argument to how athletics are more valued of fine arts except for the fact he has just broke dont my speech and state i have no proof.
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

I will address my opponents arguments: "Fine arts overrules athletics, because; yes athletics help you stay fit, but fine arts take time and has been more unique through history sense the beginning of time." Wow, my opponent gives a clear reason why you negate without me even having to say anything. Athletics help keep fit whereas fine arts don't. I have clearly won this argument and have basicall won the debate before it has even started. My opponent's first argument makes no sesnse. Just because something takes more time doesn't mean it should be valued more. Even if you were to use this logic, you would negate, this is because I will provide an example. One round of debate is shorter than a basketball game showing that in this case, athletics ought be valued more. " For example: Art, Band, Chorus, Theater, and Orchestra. Cave drawings is an example of art which is admired by millions through time, band which is gospel and old singing without words to the music you have now, as the same with chorus and Orchestra. So, they should teach it, which also goes into within history subjects , which history relates to everything in education in America, but Athletics have not been as popular as fine arts." Even though this is a long paragraph and may seem intellectual, it simply is not. The majority of this is my opponent listing off examples of fine arts which in no way helps him win this round. He then makes some unclear link to history. So fine arts is related to history, that doesn't mean it should be valued higher than athletics. My opponents last statement is just false. He can in no way provide evidence showing that the fine arts is more popular than athletics in secondary schools, it is rather the other way around. I contend that students ought the right to pick their own extra-curricular activities in school. Thus we come to a compromise that athletics and fine arts ought be valued the same. When looking to the resolution, in this case, you must vote CON because pro has not shown why fine arts should be valued more which is what the resoltuion asks. All he accomplished in his last speech was to name different types of fine arts which is insufficient to affirm.
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

Fine arts overrules athletics, because; yes athletics help you stay fit, but fine arts take time and has been more unique through history sense the beginning of time. For example: Art, Band, Chorus, Theater, and Orchestra. Cave drawings is an example of art which is admired by millions through time, band which is gospel and old singing without words to the music you have now, as the same with chorus and Orchestra. So, they should teach it, which also goes into within history subjects , which history relates to everything in education in America, but Athletics have not been as popular as fine arts.
If people were properly educated, capitalism would disappear

hello there! Pro Socialist! it's been a while since I've had a giggle like that, i accept your challenge and it's rules declared in round 1, i won't make an argument yet so we both have the same amount of turns but i will say that you're wrong, and i will tell you why after you post your first argument but before we continue i strongly recommend that you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" it is a Fable that might change your point of view slightly, you can read it here: http://vho.org... anyways, this is only a suggestion since it is a good book that i might state during the argument, and it will save me a great amount of effort if you were to read it, great book, i am eager to receive your response! 'till next time.
If people were properly educated, capitalism would disappear

I couldn't fit the entire resolution in the title, but here it is:"If people were properly educated and the government wasn't involved in the economy, capitalism would disappear."I am arguing that this is true, my opponent will argue it is false. I'll take burden of proof solely. Rules of debate:1) No insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks. Be civil2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one since I am not using round 1 for argument. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttal to your opponent's arguments. There should be no new arguments in this round. New facts and information can be presented, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's argumentsDefinitions of relevant terms:Definitions are courtesy of wikipediaCapitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."Private property: a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities."Cooperative: "an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business." I would add that cooperatives are cooperative, as opposed to, private property.Worker cooperative: "a cooperative that is owned and self-managed by its workers"Now, for this debate, I need my opponent to agree that worker cooperatives are not capitalistic. I argue that they are not because they are cooperative property, and not private property which is a necessary part of capitalism, as defined above. If my opponent has objection to any of the above definitions or rules, say so in the comments before accepting the debate so that I can change it if I agree to what you suggest should be the definition of terms or rules. I am also willing to change the total number of rounds to 5, or less than 4 if my opponent wants a different amount of rounds.
We should not ban the deah penalty

Counter Arguments 1) My arguments stand. My opponent has forfeited two of the debate rounds. 2) I have refuted almost all of his arguments, while he only refuted a little. __________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) Did you know that it costs a lot of money just to execute a person from jail? ___________________________________________________________________ To the voters: Conduct: My opponent has forfeited two of the debate rounds. Spelling and Grammar: I had better spelling and grammar by a little. Reliable Sources: I have listed more sources than my opponent. ____________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) www.deathpenalty.org/ 2) www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty Thank you to debatefreak22.