BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism is the most beneficial form of Government for the welfare of it's people

"With the means of production in the hands of the people, they can control what is produced. When people have the control, I argue that they can create the things that are most beneficial for society as a whole which in turn makes them happy. The benefits of this are also being able to control the foreign market which will create a level of involvement on the people's part, which would lead to more political involvement as well. When the People are more informed and have more control, I argue that they are happier and the whole society will benefit because of the community effort, involvement and control over their resources and production means rather than being exploited by private ownership. Thus Socialism is beneficial and thus creates a better welfare than in other government types." When speaking about "The people", you essentially mean the government, which consists of elected officials that represent the totality. The problem with government control of the economy is that it is unpredictable. In order to control the economy, government must use a lot of capital for maintenance, surveillance, and hundreds of other things. This in and of itself restricts the economy. In addition, the government cannot respond fast enough to public wants. Limitation of production can lead to severe market failures and depressions because the self-correcting factors of the market cannot act when restricted by the government. I believe that the government should take a minimal regulatory role economically. Having a free market is the TRUE method of putting the market in the hands of the people. There is no need for constant government regulation for production. A free market has all the benefits you stated with none of the side effects. To cite an example, the American economy is the strongest in the world so far because of capitalism. Countries aiming for socialism all fell short.
Socialism is the most beneficial form of Government for the welfare of it's people

"Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." -wikipedia I believe the stated resolution that socialism is the most beneficial form of government form for the welfare of it's people. --I define Socialism: "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." --the definition of Beneficial: "Conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful." --and Welfare: "The good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being." With the means of production in the hands of the people, they can control what is produced. When people have the control, I argue that they can create the things that are most beneficial for society as a whole which in turn makes them happy. The benefits of this are also being able to control the foreign market which will create a level of involvement on the people's part, which would lead to more political involvement as well. When the People are more informed and have more control, I argue that they are happier and the whole society will benefit because of the community effort, involvement and control over their resources and production means rather than being exploited by private ownership. Thus Socialism is beneficial and thus creates a better welfare than in other government types.
Learning a musical instrument should be compulsory in schools

Children should be encouraged to pley an instrument, not however it should be mandetory. If it was mandetory not all students would want to do it and it would not be constuctive or benifical for them. As for the fact music can be relaxing and benificial, that can be done by just listening to it. Other than those points i do belive music is important but not important for everyone to make it. Students should be given the oppertunity however.
Learning a musical instrument should be compulsory in schools

I believe that children are not given enough opportunities to learn musical instruments in school. Learning a new instrument is much easier when in childhood due to the amount of retained memory being higher in children than adults, and I believe that giving that opportunity to them is a step that schools could take. Music is known to relax and de-stress people (as shown in the study -http://psychcentral.com...) so to introduce compulsory music lessons would help relieve the pressure put upon children during their time in school. Many children are not given the chance to learn a musical instrument because of money issues and with the schools funding, every child can have an equal opportunity to learn a musical instrument. I strongly believe this is a step that all schools should take nation wide so there can be a more healthy balance of academic and artistic schooling.
The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

Lol that's a tricky one. But like I said, its not what is said but what is done that sets our subconscious moral standards. The child would learn that socially it is wrong to cheat, but its OK to do it if nobody sees you. The child would try to please his father by not cheating, but if the need arrose and he felt sure nobody would find out, he would cheat.
The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

Sorry I forfeited. (I did get intimidated by Con's argument) Here's something I thought of: What if a child experiences contradicting moments? Let's say Bill's father plays golf, and takes Bill to his golf games once Bill is 4 years old. After Bill's 7th birthday, the father takes him to go golfing. Bill's father tells him that cheating is bad. But Fred, the father's friend, cheats all the time by tossing his own ball around while the father isn't looking. Bill sees Fred cheat. He sees his father play fair. This is Bill's first time golfing, so he doesn't know whether he should cheat or not. He saw a person cheat, and he saw a person not cheat for 3 years. Is cheating 'moral' for Bill?
The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

It's irrespective what comes first. Morals are determined by what adults do and ethics by what they say. I might tell my child lying is bad, but which adult hasn't misled their child? Santa, the tooth fairy, the boogie man, etc. Once a child realizes that adults lie, either adults are bad, or lies are not. Most children choose to believe adults are not bad. Therefore adult actions are always moraly correct. It's only once we reach the age of reason that we start to judge people by ethical standards. But everything we learnt before that remains in our subconscious. If you have ever had unethical thoughts or behaved unethically and can't explain why, look to your early childhood. Look at the adults you grew up with and their behaviour. Everything will come clear to you.
The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

So if a child experiences something, that is automatically right for that individual? What if it goes against what they've been told before the experience? What if ethical values are set in position before the father gets angry? Ethical values, as you say, are what society believes (and mainly is) moral; right. But if ethical values aren't the same as moral values, and ethical values come first to someone before a ("moral") experience, then which would be moral?
The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

I'll start with a little anecdote. Jack is 5. Jack's father drinks and when he is drunk he gets abusive. He uses foul language and sometimes beats Jack and Jack's mother. To Jack's 5 year old brain, this is how a man behaves. This is how children must be treated and this is what women enjoy. A bit extreme, I know. But you can replace Jack with Jill and make Jill's mother cook for the family, or having affairs. It makes no difference. The point is that we learn our morals. Not by what we are told to do, but by watching how adults do things. What we see, becomes right. It doesn't have to be parents. Any role models will do. Uncles, aunts, grandparents, neighbours, even fictional characters from movies and video games. Their actions set the president for what is right and wrong. This information is stored in our subconscious mind and sometimes we are not even aware they are there. This is because we have a second set of values. Ethical values. Ethical values reside in the conscious mind. These are the rules set by adults, teachers, priests, holy books, imaams, rabbi's and society at large. We automatically adopt these ethical values when we are part of a group, family or society. But we don't always agree with them. As long as our conscious minds are in control, we will follow the ethical standards, but when our subconscious takes control, our true morals come to light. Alcohol is one of the most common causes of loss of consciousness. We find that people do things they would never do consciously. Things they know are unethical. They don't even know why they did it. Anger is another cause. This is why road rage occurs. I'm sure there are many people who felt the urge to punch someone in the face at one time or another. But its not all gloom and doom. Sometimes a societies ethical values say something is wrong, but our morals say its not. Things such as racism, bigotry, classism and elitism are encouraged in certain communities but an individual could realize that it's wrong. Neither ethically, nor morally is there a one size fits all definition of good and evil. Ethical values vary from one group to the next and moral values differ from person to person. But the source of our moral values is without a doubt learnt through our childhood experiences. Even if we were too young to remember or comprehend the things we saw, they are recorded in our subconscious and set the tone for what type of adults we will one day become.
The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

I argue that the Nature of Morality (a perfect source of morality that has no flaws) cannot be defined. Con can choose whatever he/she thinks holds the source of morality, and I, as Pro, must prove that Con's position doesn't work. A few definitions to go off of Nature of Morality: a flawless answer of how we choose right/wrong. Flawless: no flaws; when I am unable to counter Con's position, his/her answer is flawless Morality: knowing right from wrong. Rules: 1) No insulting, trolling, etc. 2) A forfeit (timing out) will count as a concession in that round. 3) You may quote famous Philosophers that you got your position from. (Example: Protagoras, Human Valuing) 4) How I know about the "Nature of Morality' thing is from a game called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher", so I may quote that, or use it as a reference, often. If the opponent disagrees with this, I won't use it. 5) My goal is to refute Con's argument, as I'm disproving the fact that a flawless source of morality can be found. If BoP falls on me in round 2 by Con's decision, I may do so. 6) Morality does exist, but a flawless answer cannot be defined. Just wanted to make that clear Round Rules: Round 1: Con will present his source of morality,and his reasoning to do so. Round 2: If Con wishes me to present why I'm choosing my side, I'll do so. I'll also ask questions if needed. Round 3 & 4: We argue whether Con's position is faulty or not. If I think I found a flaw, I'll show the flaw. Then Con has to reply to my points Round 5: I sum up Con's points and the flaws I showed, then I'll try to see if it really is flawless. If it is, I'll concede. If I see yet another problem in his thoughts, I'll present it. If I present the flaw, Con must explain it.
If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned.

I will quickly set up some voters (since I'm in a rush) 1. Teaching some form of reason for existence is a secular purpose. Both Evolution and Creationism give insight to this. Thus, to avoid a set double standard, it is necessary to teach both. 2. Therefore, creationism ought to be taught along side with evolution. *I apologize for the very short response, but I got things to do. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned.

Observation 3 is in dispute. "Evolution would be taught no matter if the resolution was negated or affirmed." Constitutionally if atheism were a religion and evolution were part of that religion without any good secular purpose (which those stipulations would tend to imply) then the legal remedy to the teaching of a religious doctrine of evolution is to stop teaching evolution. If evolution is religious in nature it should be struck down and forbidden via the first amendment. Insofar as many who make the argument that evolution is part of atheism and religious and therefore we should teach creationism, they make the same mistake you make. If that were the case, then the solution isn't to teach another unconstitutional thing to balance out the unconstitutionality of something else. Rather, it's to end the unconstitutional practices all together. The conclusion to Contention I is acceptable. There's a chance that a religious evolution as part of atheism might have a secular purpose of more primacy than indoctrination and therefore be legal much like blue laws are legal because though religious they do have secular purposes. However, if a teaching was violating the first amendment, "that teaching should be banned." The conclusion of Contention II is categorically unacceptable. There is no principle of equality in the first amendment. If "In God We Trust" is found to be an unconstitutional religious statement on a government coin we do not remedy the situation by adding "There Is No God" to other coins in equal amounts. If we cannot remedy the first problem, we do not counter one wrong with another wrong. Your conclusion is based on a bad observation in the observation section. You are asserting a double-standard in error. If the aforementioned stipulations of the topic are held to be accurate then the legal remedy is exactly what you logically concluded in Contention I, we must stop teaching evolution. In such a case creationism should still be banned. Q.E.D.
If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned.

I negate: If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned. [Definitions] 1. (Theory of) Evolution: theory stating that man has changed from less developed primates. Humans in a sense have "evolved" to what they are now. 2. Religion: a belief of the existence or non-existence of a greater supernatural force. Creationism: a theological belief that the universe and life itself resulted from a supreme being. Banned: made illegal. [Observations] 1. The resolution implies that atheism is a religion. (Also stated by opponent) 2. The ideals of the constitution ought to be upheld. 3. Evolution would be taught no matter if the resolution was negated or affirmed. [Contention] Contention I: First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If evolution was a "part", and "doctrine", of the religion of atheism, and it was taught in public schools, then the state would be supporting a religion. Therefore, according to the 1st amendment, that teaching should be banned. Contention II: Existence of a Double Standard Now link the reasoning of Contention I to my observations 2 and 3. By affirming the resolution, the government would be creating an unjust double standard in that a doctrine of atheism would be taught and not the doctrine of creationism. Since both teachings derive from some type of "religion", then to fulfill the governments obligation of equality, both must be taught. --> My opponent has stated an unwarranted case, so there is nothing for me to me to refute.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

You can't just say the Devils are a better team because they've beaten the Rangers 3 out of 5 times. You need to look at their overall statistics throughout the course of the season, in which the Rangers prove stronger. I'm not saying the Devils are a bad hockey team, because they are by far not a bad team at all. However, I am still remaining with my opinion that the Rangers are a better hockey team. They've had their ups and downs throughout history and throughout the season, but what great team hasn't? I feel that, when the Rangers play a certain team, they exert a certain amount of effort. And the other night, they didn't seem to play as hard as they would versing a team of higher ranks in the NHL standings. This was probably their downfall of that game. Although they're always working hard, there are times they accommodate their effort to the talent of the team their playing. In the end, the Rangers have one of the best goalies in the league, the strongest defense-men, a determined coach, and years full of history that make the team what it is as of today.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

As previously stated, the rangers and devils have squared off four times this season and have split the games with two wins each. On March 6, 2012(yesterday), the two teams played for the fifth time this season and the devils dominated the rangers 4-1. The devils have a very talented team consisting of Patrik Elias, Zach Parise, Ilya Kovalchuk, and Petr Sykora. All of these guys have been well known and respected in the NHL for their talents and achievements. The rangers have a young and inexperienced roster while the devils have had guys in the league for over a decade. The rangers have a better record and will most likely be one of the top seeds in the playoffs but once the playoffs start, it's a new season. The rangers might have to play the devils in the playoffs in which case, they will have to win a best to 7 series against them. The devils are 3-2 against the rangers this season so if I'm a rangers fan, I don't like their odds of winning it all.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

As of this season, what the Devils lack is variety. The Rangers have multiple lines that contain both strong defensive and offensive players. Their lines consist of new, fresh, and young players who contain incredible talent for the game. What each team basically comes down to is its overall talent, and the talent of the players that make up the team. The Rangers have some of the best players in the league right now, including Brad Richards, Henrik Lundqvist, and Marian Gaborik (who is currently ranked 23rd in the league in points and 4th in the league with 32 goals). Some people even claim that Dan Girardi and Marc Staal are two of the strongest defensive players in the league. Although Devils' captain, Zach Parise, is an extremely talented individual, he and his team can't seem to measure up to the talent experienced on the Rangers. Also, as a team (like mentioned earlier), the Rangers have this bond that brings them together to play off each others strengths. Likewise, this bond only seems to being getting stronger as they continually win games and maintain their spot at number one in the eastern conference.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

Yes I did say that the Rangers have won 4 Stanley Cups as opposed to the devils 3, although, all but one of those championships have been when there were 6 teams in the league. (You can compare this to the Yankee fans that always brag about their championships when about half of them weren't in the modern era.) Technically, the Devils have three Stanley Cup victories while the Rangers have only one(1994). Martin Brodeur has been so successful with the Devils because of the teams structure. They run a trap on defense and it has been effective since Brodeur came on the team in 1990. He is so comfortable with the trap that he knows where each player is going to be at any given time. His international accomplishments are great as well but not as great as his accomplishments with the Devils because of the teams structure.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

Although the Devils have a strong hockey team, the Rangers' statistics this season cannot even begin to compare to those of the Devils. Looking at the statistics currently, the Rangers have maintained their first place position for some time now, while the Devils seemed to have dropped from sixth to seventh place in the Eastern Conference. The Rangers were always a strong hockey team. Even though there were times where the Devils proved to be stronger, on more occasions have the Rangers been able to beat the Devils than vice versa. Like you mentioned before, the Rangers have won 4 Stanley Cups as opposed to the Devils 3, only adding to the fact that even under general circumstances the Rangers have always been a better hockey team. Another important thing to note is that the Rangers were able to say that Wayne Gretzky, someone who many people believe to be the greatest player ever in the NHL, played with them for some time. This just shows that there is more history behind the Rangers, and that such a history builds a team to what is it today.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

Looking back on Lundqvist and Brodeur's careers, it's safe to say that with time, it's very possible for Lundqvist to match or even surpass Martin's records. But, not many goalies will get the opportunity to come close to touching these records because not many people can play the position for two decades straight. Lundqvist is a great goalie but he hasn't even gone a decade in the league, and I don't know if he will be as motivated or unsatisfied long enough that he wants to play that long. Peter DeBoer was named the Devils coach on July 19, 2011. He has a lot of coaching experience in the OHL(Ontario Hockey League) where he coached for 13 seasons. This is his first season with the New Jersey Devils and his fourth season in the NHL(3 seasons with the Florida Panthers). He has won multiple championships in the OHL but has not made the playoffs in the NHL yet. After this season, I can guarantee that he will make the playoffs in the NHL for the first time.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

Although you make very good points regarding Martin Brodeur's career successes, he hasn't performed very well against the Rangers. Henrik Lundqvist continues to prove that he can consistently beat Brodeur, having a record of 21-5-5 in his career against Brodeur. Also, you mentioned that Brodeur is what many consider to be the best goalie of all time. This may be true, but Henrik is still early in his career, and he is already at the top of his game. The rangers have a young team and a bright future. This season, the Rangers were chosen to participate in the Winter Classic, going head to head against the Philadelphia Flyers. Even though the Winter Classic only started in 2008, the Devils have not been chosen to play in such an honorable event. Because the Rangers were playing in the Winter Classic, they were broadcasted on an HBO series called Rangers-Flyers 24/7 in the upcoming weeks to the game. This show allowed us to see the chemistry on and off the ice regarding both teams. Rangers fans were able to see how the team was brought together under John Tortorella. Being the coach of the best hockey team in the Eastern Conference so far this season, Tortorella has proven he can motivate these young guys to playing at their highest potential. He's not only their coach, but also their friend. In having this ability, he shows passion not only for the game, but for the players themselves, both on and off the ice. Some people even speculate that John Tortorella will win coach of the year.