BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandarin Chinese should be taught alongside English because it is used just as much as English.

I'm sure it will be interesting. Also this is my first debate so have mercy please. . http://en.wikipedia.org... According to the link above more people speak English than Mandarin. 1.5 billion speak English while roughly 1 billion speak Mandarin. While this seems like a good reason for Americans to start picking up a second language you have to actually look deeper into the situation. English is used more as an international language while mandarin is primarily a local language. Out of 1.5 billion half speak English as a first language while the other speak it as a foreign language. Of those who speak Mandarin 800 million or so speak it as their first language. The other 200 million as a foreign language. Why would be force our children to learn a language that even most other countries don't use as a second language? I can't deny the expansion of China economically but what does a language do for you if it's primarily spoken in its native land? English is used everywhere. Almost any country you go to there will always be someone that knows English. You can't really say that with Mandarin. Until Mandarin becomes more international it should remain as an optional subject of study.
Mandarin Chinese should be taught alongside English because it is used just as much as English.

So in other words, you do agree that Chinese is a practical language to learn, especially for the business world? Sounds like you are definitely in full support of my original statement. Chinese being useful in very specific areas as you so claim does not deny the fact that it is spoken almost as widely as English. http://www.parents.com... By the way, children have the ability to pick up languages easily with the proper education so your argument it being such a difficult language doesn't quite fly here. Learning foreign languages will be natural for most children. Studies show that learning foreign languages, no matter what the language may be is beneficial no matter how you look at it. http://www.languagestars.com... http://www.actfl.org... Your personal experience with learning Asian languages just shows that you don't have an aptitude for learning those kinds of languages, so that argument is also invalid.
Mandarin Chinese should be taught alongside English because it is used just as much as English.

http://www.bloomberg.com... this link is primarily stating that mandarin is a good language to learn if you are going into business in the asian area http://mandarin.about.com... quote from this link "Mandarin will allow you to communicate with almost anyone in China or Taiwan. But if you plan to concentrate your activities in Guangdong Province or Hong Kong you may find Cantonese to be more useful. Similarly, if you plan to do business in southern Taiwan, you might find that Taiwanese is better for establishing business and personal connections. Spoken Mandarin, Cantonese and Taiwanese are mutually unintelligible, even though they are often called dialects." even in this link they suggest you do some research and learn the local language! overall the information you posted does not help your argument one bit. the most you can get from your argument is that it would be good to learn mandarin for primarily business and occasional travel in the asian area. neither of these are strong enough to convince me that our children should learn mandarin. what use will mandarin do for you outside of the pacific? English is useful in Europe, South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. Of these continents which would knowing mandarin help you in? your argument that Mandarin is not so hard to learn is simply untrue. Mandarin is one of the hardest languages to learn. You have to remember that learning the language does not mean just speaking it. our children would have to learn how to read and write as well. http://usmilitary.about.com... the link above is about the DLAB. It is a test created by the Department of Defense to test your ability to learn a language. They break the different languages into categories. the higher the number the more difficult the language. as you can see the highest category (cat 4) has Chinese (mandarin). I know this personally because i was recently in the military and had to take the test to even apply to become an asian linguist. I was able to pass the test to place in category 4 but not by much. In the Marine Corps you actually need a 110 to place in Cat 4. So at best mandarin is good for business. even then if your are not in business then mandarin does you no good unless you are traveling to Asia. Even then most asian countries speak english as well so you don't even need to know the local language so much for travel.
Theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans now

Case 1: First, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! I think I have proven evolution true. However, I will now prove it is not possible without the existence of god. Case 2: Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say that god created the chicken, or god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken. My next case is that everything would have to evolve at the same time for an our Eco-system to be the way it is now. Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve. I think these are sound arguments that proves that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today. Thank you for reading my argument. I hand the debate over to a highly respected debater DudeStop. 1. http://www.amnh.org... 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Resolved: Pizza delivery men/women do not automatically deserve a gratuity.

As a response to why my argument was not serious i will say that yes the arguement was supposed to be written in the way that the delivery men seem like super human simply because this isnt a very serious debate. If i was to debate the rule of the supreme court in Roe vs Wade or wether the lazarus effect should be applied to the United States i would have made my arguement far more serious. And also there has never been a law that you have to even tip a pizza deliverer just a suggestion by the companies saying that it is only polite for what they have to do to get you your pizza. First, you stated "A waiter must take orders, constantly take care of customers, get the food out quickly and correctly, and be nice. All of this deserves a tip, especially when most of their salary is obtained through tips. " What, i ask you, do you think the pizza delivery men and women do? The waiter in a restaurant makes far more money than the average delivery worker even without the tips. If you use the percentage excuse as you stated in your last argument then you will realize that the food sold at a restaurant with waiters costs far more than a simple pizza. Second, to respond to your statement "Who's to say that the consumer doesn't have a harder job (factory worker, serviceman, etc. ) that doesn't get a tip" it is because the employer has to take into account of the labour by way of the Fed. government. A recently hired employee to the average factory makes 22 dollars an hour as apposed to 15 dollars per hour made by a pizza deliverer. And examples of servicemen: mailman - 19 dollars per hour (dph) or a custodian who makes 6 to 17 dph depending on the establishment. Third if you think that waiters and fine diners dont do almost the same thing you are sadly mistaken as seen in the youtube video. . http://www.youtube.com... And if you actually sit down and think about the differences between the two jobs you will see that a pizza delivery worker is an extreme version of a waiter. A waiter walks quickly table to table delivering food. A pizza delivery worker drives house to house miles in difference bettween each address and the waiters still make more money. In conclusion pizza delivery workers deserve gratuity for their hard work and necessary expenditures to get you your pizza on time.
Resolved: Pizza delivery men/women do not automatically deserve a gratuity.

I apologize for my earlier forfeit; I have been on the road and I now just got internet. I will continue with a rebuttal and voters here, and I hope my opponent will understand, and I will be perfectly fine if he wishes to have a rebuttal in his last speech. The problem with my opponent's points is he tries to paint the delievery men/women with " Their sheer strength and determination to deliver your pizza on time to the destination, which could be miles away, overpowers the most terrifying traffic jams and the most heinous of experiences to bring you a pizza pie." I smelt a hint of sarcasm and humor here. Watch this video and tell me if you still feel the same way: http://www.youtube.com... I agree, pizza delivery men may have the arduous job that my opponent describes. But does it warrant a tip? Frankly, no. If we do, we should give every job a tip. It really doesn't warrant a tip to put a pizza in a car, drive a moderately short distance, (which is true. My opponent tries to say that the distance may be many miles, but pizza chains do't deliver past a certain point), and pull the pizza out of the car. Contention 2: My opponent states that a delivery man makes close to 15 dollars an hour. That's quite a lot of money. And yes I agree that pizza men rely on the gratuity. But this is very important. All I am saying is that pizza delivery men do not DESERVE a tip. I will continue to tip them every time my pizza comes to my house and every time beyond then, but I do not think their job warrants it. This second contention just makes a sob story. He says that the rough economy makes the tip more viable. But what about the people who are ordering the pizza? Is the economy not affecting them? Pizza prices are rising which means so do the tip prices (Because it's a percentage). What about the consumers? Why should we only think about the delivery men? Who's to say that the consumer doesn't have a harder job (factory worker, serviceman, etc.) that doesn't get a tip? My point is clear, simply saying that the economy is bad doesn't mean they should get more tips or get tips, if anything it shouldn't be that big of a deal if they get less tips. In conclusion, I don't want to sound like a bigot or a jerk. Like I said before I order pizza a lot and give a 20% tip. Recently I have began to wonder what the delivery men do to deserve the tip. My opponent has given no real reason why delivery men deserve the tip more than any other job, nor has he shown RATIONALLY why they deserve it. ALl he has said is that they drive perilously through the streets dangerously and costly, making it seem more like an action movie more than real life. I advocate an AFF ballot because I hope you realize I think that if pizza delivery men do a great job delivering your pizza, they should get a tip. But do I think they deserve it AUTOMATICALLY? No. Vote AFF.
Resolved: Pizza delivery men/women do not automatically deserve a gratuity.

We the con believe that pizza delivery men deserve a tip because their pay checks are less than anyone working at the pizzaria. Contention 1- Pizza delivery men and women are the backbone of the working class. Their sheer strength and determination to deliver your pizza on time to the destination, which could be miles away, overpowers the most terrifying traffic jams and the most heinous of experiences to bring you a pizza pie. These brave souls are the very deffinition of good old fashioned working class Americans. A character type that is almost extinct. Contention 2- When pizza delivery workers recieve their pay the manager takes in to account the money expected to be made from tips through the hours that the delivery person works. This is not only a bottom scraping pay check it also woudnt cover the rising cost of gas. The price of gas is almost 4 dollars a gallon an will soon rise to 5 dollars by the end of the coming year. Not many people realize that the average pizza man makes 15 dollars an hour if you are an experienced and veteran driver. And as i previously stated this doesnt cover the cost of gas which cleaves the profit to below the Federal Government set standards of pay. All in all pizza delivery men and women rely on your gratuity to make it through a rough economy to the next delivery.
Resolved: Pizza delivery men/women do not automatically deserve a gratuity.

Now I would like to provide some framework/understanding of the resolution. I am going to be arguing that a gratuity should not be the standard for a pizza delivery person. Under the status quo, if you order pizza for delivery it is expected that the consumer pay a modest tip for the delivery person's services. I am not trying to disrespect the profession of the pizza delivery person nor am I trying to insult anyone. I will simply be arguing this should not be expected for the following reasons: Reason 1: Not deserving of the tip When we think of tips we think of tipping our waiters and waitresses for a job well done. A waitress is much different than a delivery person, however. A waiter must take orders, constantly take care of customers, get the food out quickly and correctly, and be nice. All of this deserves a tip, especially when most of their salary is obtained through tips. But if we look at a delivery person, what do they really do? They drive the pizza to your door and expect a tip. Why does this deserve a tip? They are simply doing a very simple job with very little variables, unlike the waiter/waitress. Reason 2: Already expensive enough Right now pizza prices are climbing. At most big name chain restaurants large pizza prices are climbing over $10 per pizza. (pizzahut. com, papajohns. com, dominos. com) If you order delivery you're looking at another $2.50 for a "delivery fee" plus tax. And on top of the "delivery fee," it is expected to pay the person who had to drive a car a tip? It should not be compared to limousine or bus drivers because their jobs consist of navigating large vehicles comfortably and making frequent stops to accommodate passengers. In conclusion, I, again, do not want to come off as rude. It just is mind-boggling to me that it should be expected to tip a delivery person for doing their job when prices are already rising. I await my opponent's response and hope for a good debate.
Resolved: Pizza delivery men/women do not automatically deserve a gratuity.

Hello and thanks for the debate. This first round will be for accepting conditions/defintions. Second round will be for constructive speeches NO REBUTTALS. The third round will be for rebuttals with no new points added. The fourth round with be for voting issues. Defintions: gratutity (Webster's Dictionary): something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some service If you accept these definitions/framework let's debate!
Gun Control

I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it. When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.
Gun Control

Indeed your points are valid. But I said that we could modify tazers so they could be like guns. The person Could shoot from long range stoping the attacker without you killing them. When you say anybody could get a gun illegaly, I say it will be harder because they know that guns will be harder to get because the govt. could check every dock for guns,and the TSA would certainly not allow guns to be transported into the U.S. illegaly. And if you see somebody with a gun, people could inform the police and know that they are comiting a crime. I'm sure that if you say people can still deal drugs and stuff, it will be harder for people to deal guns, they are easier to see. It is true that criminals could attack with any other weapon but the purpose of gun control is not to get rid of all crime but to decrease it. For example if you have a cold and you take medicine to get rid of it, that wont stop it from cmoing back but it relieves and reduces the cold. The second amendment states "A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I don't know if this is all new to you but we don't use a militia anymore. We have police departments as well as armed forces paid for a run by the government, not civilians like a regular militia. Also our founding fathers never thought of guns that could wipe out an entire class of chldren in mere seconds. Back then they had single loading muskets and pistols that took 5 minutes to load. Maybe you should change your name ( no offense intended) because if your going to call yourself "policydebategod" you should rebuke and debate every single argument not just 2 or 3 and add a new fact.
Gun Control

- When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. + Tazers are nothing compared to guns. A person will shott you as you are trying to taze them. If you are trying to protect yourself from a person with a gun a tazer will do nothing to save you. - Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves. - The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this. - Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one. - In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.)
Patriotism is Justifiable

We shall use the following standard dictionary definitions... Patriotism - "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. " The first round is for acceptance only. Debaters may not introduce new concepts during the last round, however, anything else is fair game. I shall be arguing that patriotism is not justifiable, my opponent shall be arguing that it is. I look forward to an interesting debate. The limit is set to 6,000 characters because I do not have the time for any more.
Why don"t we watch our leader 24/7

I am just a human who thought of the idea to watch the leader of the country. Civilocity is a new neologism that describes a form of government where the people get to watch the leader of their country for the entire time anybody ever leads their country. Why don"t we watch the leader of our country? The obvious fact is; we do watch the leader of our country. We just don"t watch them 24/7. So, why don"t we watch our leader 24/7? One reason we don"t is; we like the leader of our country. We elected that person through a democracy meaning that the majority of votes were cast in favor of that person. In conclusion, we don"t want to watch the people we like. We want the leader of our country to have the right to privacy. Consent is the governing force behind civilocity. Civilocity will require a leader of a country who consents to losing their privacy. A futuristic government where the people watch the leader of their country is not realistic. It took democracy over 2000 years to be implemented in the majority of the world. Civilocity might take another 2000 years before the people watch the leader of their country 24/7. When civilocity is instated around the world the people will know every single thing, every single leader, of every single country did while leading. The appeal of civilocity is present. The desire to watch the leader 24/7 is a revolution waiting to happen.
Males are superior so females

"Queen Catherine accomplished much in her lifetime, Compared to a vast majority of Male rulers. " Bet, Every continent was dominated by male superiority, Almost all of the Aztec, Incan, And Mayan kingdoms were ruled my males, Europe was dominated by male rulers, From Caesar to Willelm II, They were almost all males, Africa was almost always ruled my males like Shaka, The middle east was all male (I actually couldn't find a single female leader) and Asia was also mostly male, Also "The "Pirate-Queen" was powerful nonetheless and was fairly good at strategy. " She also attacked the Chinese government and because of her many lives were lost and drug addiction was rampant in China and because of her the British led the Opium wars on China, I don't think she was a very good person, And if you put her here because she "was fairly good at strategy" then go look at the male generals, We have Belisarius, Rommel, Caesar, Alexander, And many others, And if you were saying it because she was good at naval strategy than how about you look at Admiral Yi who didn't lose a single and is a exemplar of conduct for both the Koreans and Japanese people. Sorry I focused on Cheng I Sao for so long, Let me just say something, If females are so powerful how come for a long time in history they were viewed as objects?