BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them.

Like I said before, you can obtain just as good, if not better, education at some of these other "cost-effective" schools. However, your argument was that the Ivy Leagues were losing their prestige and allure(ment). As far as location, I was simply using that as an example that just as location is a major factor in successful real estate, so is history and reputation when it comes to education. Schools like Harvard provide "prestige" and often provide "connections" which make it easier to get a high paying job. It's not necessarily fair, but many employers associate Harvard with higher intelligence and prominence and will be more likely to hire the person with that school on their resume. I personally don't think one has to go to an Ivy League to obtain the best education or to become successful. For that matter there are many who have become millionaires without even finishing college. Both the founders of Microsoft and Facebook are Harvard dropouts....and there are several on the Forbes top 500 richest people who dropped out of other colleges. However, your argument is contending that these schools have lost their appeal...once again I ask you to look at the articles stating otherwise. What things are Ivy League schools not providing for but students pay for anyway? In your opening argument you mention that they are overpriced because of "old buildings" and "old geezers". Now you are saying that they are paying for something they are not getting? I'm sure that those attending Ivy Leagues are well aware of what they are paying for and if not "Daddy" sure is.
Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them.

There are many other schools who offer the same things you mentioned, history, experienced professors, and a prominent label. These schools include Stanford, Columbia, there really is a long list. However, these schools do not come with the same overwhelming cost as the Ivy League schools. Despite, what Shakespeare said, there really isn't that much in a name and if a rose were called betty it would still smell sweet. As a person who went to Princeton for my undergrad and then to Georgetown for my law degree I can say that going to Princeton really wasn't worth the money. As for you arguement about location for any major that you are pursuing at the Ivy League there is a non Ivy school that can provide you with that same major in a better way simply becasue of thier location. A polisci degree would be better recieved at American or George Washington who are right in the nation's capitol. A medical degree would be better earned at John Hopkins were they have dozens of research centers. There are simply things that an Ivy League cannot provide but you sure are payign for anyway.
Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, these names no longer mean what they used to. Today, cost-benefit effectiveness and the ability to produce globally effective persons of society are what makes a University prestigious, not overpricing you to stay in a building built hundreds of years ago and be taught by geezers five times your age. Other non-Ivy schools such as Stanford, Georgetown, and Northwestern have proven themselves to be able to stand up to the Ivy hegemonts. Some colleges such as Loyola, COlumbia, and American do this at a lower cost. Older isn't always better and while the Ivy schools are busy organizing alumni tea parties, newer more contemporary schools are on the fore front with developing ideas and plans to address problems such as global warming and the alarming rate of the depletion of the minority races.
Humans should die off and be replaced by a Superior A.I. Race.

The phrase A.I states it itself. If you haven"t noticed A.I means ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. It's not real, all man made. No emotions, just a whole lot of information. Let's say we do let these A.I. robots take over, then what would happen? Not much change. Sure humans have flaws, but also robots. People cars break down. Robots can break. In the end humans can still outsmart robots because right now robots can't have the same sense of emotion or creativity. We have created the world, and what robots are are merely our slaves. We have the power to destroy all of you with a flick of a switch. No A.I. will be "Superior" to humans.
let it be resolved that education should be left to the market

My opponent has repeated his arguments from round two, regarding the problems inherent in a government bureaucracy and the possibility of a parent being left out. The government managing the funds for this plan is crucial for two reasons. It guarantees that every student has access to an education. In a completely free market a poor parent could completely neglect their child’s education, or a very impoverished parent could not afford education at all. As I pointed out, this access to education is imperative in order for class mobility to exist, which is a prerequisite for meritocratic capitalism. It is also necessary in order for democracy to act as an adequate check against overreach in the other branches of government. Also, the system I propose will not involve any government oversight whatsoever in the management of school curricula or standards, only in the collection and allocation of equitable funds to the school of the parent’s choice. My opponent’s proposition that education’s price would drop so steeply that anyone would be able to afford it is a hefty claim, one which is thus far unsubstantiated beyond the fanciful conjectures entertained by its advocate. This argument also neglects the issue of parents who decide not to educate their children at all. As for a parent being left out, I already addressed how this could be prevented. We must have some set definition of ‘school’; otherwise the recipients of the vouchers could simply spend them at whatever institution they see fit, from hospitals to resorts, thereby defeating the purpose of the entire system. I offered a means by which petitioners could override any unjust government decisions through ballot initiatives, and my opponent has failed to demonstrate how the government could restrict education choices despite this. As for the taxation argument, my opponent is a libertarian, not an anarchist. How should the government pay for defense, a system of courts, police, etc. if not by taxes? I know that some advocate voluntary donations, others propose a system by which the government charges for each service provided (for example, the enforcement of contracts). Some advocate an estate tax, arguing that the dead have no property rights. There is no reason why such systems could not also be utilized to pay for education. In conclusion, my opponent has repeatedly tried to paint my proposal as a clunky government bureaucracy, while I have outlined why it will function in essentially the same way as a market. I feel that his criticisms ultimately fail, while mine are upheld by his inability to address the dangers posed by an uneducated public to democracy, limited government, and capitalism itself, or to prove decisively that a fully free market would not leave people in the dark.
let it be resolved that education should be left to the market

In regards to democracy, I would like to point out that I was referring to democracy as a component of a republican form of government, as extrapolated upon by Machiavelli’s analysis of political cycles and Roman republicanism in his Discourses on Livy. I was not referring to pure democracy, which I would agree is a disastrous endeavor. As for my opponent’s counterpoints, there are several assumptions that he makes. The first is that the government would regulate charter schools. It would be entirely possible for the government to simply allocate the voucher money to any institution which fulfills an educational purpose. We could allow the government to determine this, but also implement a system whereby local parents could override such decisions through ballot initiatives to prevent abuses. He also assumes that parents who wish to send their children to an unapproved school would need to pay for public schools and voucher schools on top of whatever education they prefer. This is simply not true. First of all, I am advocating a full voucher system, so there would be no public schools. But even if I were advocating a joint system, the way that it works is as follows: when a parent takes their child out of public school and enrolls them in a charter school their school tax contribution is redirected from the public school to the charter one, so there is no additional tax burden on the general population. My opponent’s proposition will leave a child’s fate almost entirely dependent on the whims of their parents and the circumstances of their birth. It will destroy the increased class mobility which is one of capitalism’s greatest features by devastating one of the only avenues by which the destitute may escape abject poverty. It will cripple democracy by resulting in a less informed citizenry. And it will provide no substantial benefits over a voucher system.
let it be resolved that education should be left to the market

Democracy is a God who failed. The main problem with this political system is that it enables the growth of government like no other. After all, if we 'are' the government (as that obnoxious bromide goes) then anything the government does is okay since 'we' 'chose' it. But this is a topic for another discussion. The main problem with a voucher system is this : not all schools qualify. Only the schools which the government approves of qualify. So what then of the parent who wants to send their child to a school which does not meet the approval of the busybodies who regulate this? They are already over a barrel in that before they can pay for the school of their choice, they must first pay for the public school system. Your proposal would have them now first pay for the public school system, the secondly pay for all the other schools which are government approved, and then after they have bought all that, then if they have any money left over they can send their kid to the school they want him to be educated in. What we need, instead of a public school system, or a voucher system which will necessarily be implemented in a horrible manner, is a market in education. Input from parents and students, not bureaucrats.
let it be resolved that education should be left to the market

I’m going to be arguing for a government-funded voucher system, not a government monopoly. I would agree that market forces can bring some much-needed quality to education through increased accountability and parent choices, but I would disagree that government should not fund that education. My argument also assumes that the country in which we are discussing education policy is a republic with at least some democratic component. I argue that the funding of education is not in itself deleterious in regards to quality and cost. What does inflict injury upon said qualities is the government management of education. I propose that a government which funds vouchers (to be spent on education) on an equal basis for each individual still preserves the basic mechanisms of the market which engender quality and low costs. I will argue that this funding is necessary because the positive qualities of democracy only manifest themselves if the public is educated enough to understand the issues being voted upon. Therefore the education of all citizens is necessary in order to maintain the validity of whatever aspect of the government is democratic and to thereby preserve the separation of powers and system of checks and balances which allow the government to function in a self-limiting manner.
Should Minimum Wage Be Raised To 15 Dollars

POINT A: A job that requires no skill or risk should not be paid like a job that requires skill. There are blue and white collar jobs that require skill or involve risk. These people deserve income of 15 dollars above. It is frivolous to say that someone should make money doing something a 14 year-old can do over the summer. If you don't have sufficient funds to support a family you shouldn't have a family. If you have a minimalist lifestyle and are married 30,000 dollars a year should suffice given you are married. With two incomes making minimum wage you should have enough money to go by. If these individuals spent more time focusing in school and getting a college degree they would have more than enough money. Generally, ones failure of working at somewhere like McDonald's is THEIR OWN FAULT. They deserve to make 7 dollars an hour. 15,800 dollars is what an unskilled tradesman should make. POINT B: People have an opportunity to go to college whether it is through a 529 plan or debt and this can allow them to receive a skilled job. If need be these individuals could go to college and go back into the workforce to make a sizable income. If you work for minimum wage you are lazy because you don't feel like going back to college. If these people took out student debt they would make a respectable living doing a respectable job. These individuals could let robots do their job. They are doing something that is not nexus for them to do. Debt is okay if they go from making the measly income the deserve to making 70k a year. These people are the reason the US is seen as lazy, they sit back in their chair and fill drinks, why is that worth 15 dollars an hour? Point C: How much does one bring to the economy by filling a cup of soda every few minutes. These people don't bring much to the economy. If you are making 7 dollars an hour it is because you aren't important to the economy. Robots would take over, those people could be homeless, and our economy's wheels will still turn. When your job isn't necessary you don't make that much. These people messed up all on their own and therefore they deserve to pay through their lack of income. If they actually worked in school and went to college they could grow our nations economy and they would deserve 15 dollars an hour, but it is clear that they don't grow our economy. The laziest people on Earth feel they are entitled to their boss's(who actually do something worth while) money. GIVE BACK TO YOUR NATION, GROW THE ECONOMY. Point D: How is it that we are able to grow our economy with increased wages. Corporations will continue to outsource and people will make 0 dollars an hour instead of 15 or 7. Why would a company pay someone 15 dollars instead of making 300% more profit by paying people in Indonesia 3 cents an hour. It doesn't make sense. Our nation will end up losing money. Companies aren't looking for the ethical decision they are looking for the decision they can make money on. If the bottom sucks all of the money from the top of socioeconomic hierarchy we will have a sinkhole. We need to keep balance.
Should Study hall be able to be replaced with another elective

if we have study hall it will take up time when we could be doing something we love and something that is required for collage because as far as I know their is no collage that has a requirement for collage and students should be smart enough to put out time to study and if their not they deserve to fail maybe that will be enough to tell them to start studying and to stop slacking off. what your are saying is that students don't have enough common sense to prepare for upcoming events when in fact the majority of students are wise enough to plan ahead and those who don't fail that's just life if your smart you succeed if your dumb you get mediocre jobs that pay you just enough
CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

This is a CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) Debate with specific rules and format. If you intend to judge/compete in this debate, please read up on the general guidelines found in the tenth post here: http://www.debate.org... ... Use comment #10 (last one on the first page) as the updated guidelines to judge and/or compete in this debate. Example Debate: http://www.debate.org... ---Feel free to vote on it and also realize that this debate is intended to be more realistic. ========================================================= Instead of the 4 round format found in the tenth post, this will act as a 5 round debate. Round 1 is simply posting of the topic and accepting of the topic. If you accept this debate, you also accept the format of how to debate it. Furthermore, you will not post any sort of argument in your first post. Just say good luck or something. ========================================================= TOPIC: SCENARIO: The United States finds itself in 2 major wars that many Americans are against. While at the same time, an enemy of the state's are developing nuclear technology that could very soon create nuclear weapons capable of many costs to the international community. What is the most net-beneficial option for the United States Government? PRO: Invade Iran and its nuclear facilities CON: Remain pacifist by using negotiations up to but not including military engagement. ========================================================= Good luck to my opponent. May this debate be enjoyable for both sides.
Is Minecraft The Best Game Ever

But that doesn't mean it's the best game ever, I admit minecraft is a good game but it is nothing compared to games like mass effect, skyrim, uncharted, assassin's creed, GTA, etc. The best game ever is the game that has no flaws, but that will never happen. You can argue the minecraft is one of the best innovative games ever made but it shouldn't be taken as one of the best. Without mods players can get bored of minecraft pretty quickly.
Is Minecraft The Best Game Ever

No it is not. There are many reasons why minecraft is not the best game ever 1. Sword fighting animation sucks, it's like the guy is trying to hammer the zombie with a sword instead of slashing it. 2. Multiplayer is easy to hack, I hacked the lobby easy and made myself admin when I played the game. 3. Fighting the monsters in the games get boring after a while. 4. The game becomes boring after a while. 5. Beating the ender dragon made the players ask more questions rather than questions being answered. 6. What to do with dragon egg.
Abraham's Attempt To Kill His Son Was Morally Justified

"God had already guaranteed that Isaac would father children. To allow Isaac to die would mean God lied"These statements have no relation to one another. Yes, God promised that he would allow Abraham to father a child. And he got that. Isaac was born, and lived with him for a few years. In no way would his death break God's promise."God doesn't lie"The only evidence you provide for this is that God says so? On what basis does this prove he never lies? How can we be certain that his claim to truthfulness isn't, itself, a lie? All you have provided here is circular logic."Just before Abraham left with Isaac, he told his servants that both of them would return"Or perhaps he told them this because he was about to murder his own son. Honestly, what do you expect him to say? "Oh, hey, I'm going to go off and slaughter my first born now, brb"? Or course not. He probably told them that so he would not seems suspicious. Then when he returned without his son, he would just make up a lie about how they had been attacked, and his son killed."The first time God told Abraham to go somewhere, it turned out great; he became wealthy and came into possession of large amounts of land"And? Just because good things happened once, does not guarantee they will happen again. For instance, I could tell you "Go look under that rock, there's $50,000" and then turn around and say "Kill yourself". That does not in any way guarantee that killing yourself would bring about some form of goodness, and in fact, it would more likely than not result in something bad.Past deeds do not validate future goodness."Why should Abraham not obey God's second request to go somewhere, since the first time had turned out so well?"Because the second request was to murder someone. It doesn't matter how much "good" God had brought him in the past, murder is still murder. Nothing validates murder. Not even God."It should be understood that not only did Abraham trust God enough to know that generally good things would happen as a result of his faith, he knew that Isaac would live! Thus, Abraham's attempt to kill Isaac was moral."And here is the problem. Just because something good would happen, does not make murder moral. I could go and murder a bank teller, and yeah, that would probably land me a fair amount of cash. Something good. But that has no bearing on whether or not that act of murder was moral.In the same way, being rewarded for slaughtering your own son, with no justification other than "I was told to do it", sure, may bring you some kind of reward. But that has no logic bearing on whether or not what you did was moral.
Abraham's Attempt To Kill His Son Was Morally Justified

Thanks for accepting; I'll now present my two main arguments.I. Abraham knew that Isaac was going to live.God had already guaranteed that Isaac would father children. To allow Isaac to die would mean God lied:"Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him." (Genesis 17:19)God doesn't lie:"[...] God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time," (Titus 1:2)Just before Abraham left with Isaac, he told his servants that both of them would return:"He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.” (Genesis 22:5)II. Based on a similar experience, Abraham knew that good would result in doing as God requested.The first time God told Abraham to go somewhere, it turned out great; he became wealthy and came into possession of large amounts of land:"The Lord had said to Abram, “Go [...] to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:1-3)"[Abraham became] very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold." (Genesis 13:2)"The Lord said to [Abraham], “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”" (Genesis 13:14-17)Why should Abraham not obey God's second request to go somewhere, since the first time had turned out so well?"Then God said, "[...] go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice [Isaac] there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."" (Genesis 22:2)It should be understood that not only did Abraham trust God enough to know that generally good things would happen as a result of his faith, he knew that Isaac would live! Thus, Abraham's attempt to kill Isaac was moral. Please vote for Pro! Thank you :)
Humans can live without religions

Thanks to Pro for this debate. Objections to Pros R3 Link for the cosmic energy definition https://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation)#Science I call my Muslim and Hindu friends brother all the time. I am a brother to them too. I never said Buddhism is a religion, but what makes Gautam Buddha's opinion any more valid than mine or yours? I did not say that Buddha came from a religion. If we assume that an omnipotent God created the world, it must have been within his will for religion to be made. You say that religion kills animals. So does hunting. So does farming. We cant live without those. Conclusion- due to the huge impact that religion has made on our laws, society, and morals, humans cannot survive without it's influence.