BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teachers Should be Paid More

I do not believe that Secretary Duncan will appreciate you calling him a fool. The government admits that more spending has failed because that is the truth. The desire to teach or the determination to dosl is not fueled by the amount of money you have in the pocket. Regardless of the size of your wallet, you can do wonders with careful planning. Look at it this way, X has ten dollars, Y has twenty bucks, X buys a textbook, and Y buys McDonalds, and then just a couple of pens. Its not the amount given to each that has mattered, its what has been done with it. Now after noticing that Y had more money but was unproductive with it, shall we increase the allowance to Y? Over our stinking corpses would we ever do that. The point is, the teaching process is failinggiven the huge amount of funding it is allocated. Why then should we risk losing more cash to it. Until there is a sizeable change in results, we cannot have government spend more money on unresponsive works. Lets be realists please. Moreover, your statement, " Point being ALLOCATION OF FUNDING should be the focus." clearly shows that you have derailed from the topic which you set for yourself because now you are no longer saying that teachers should be paid more, but that what teachers are already paid should be distributed evenly. Furthermore, you need to understand that we are not living in Disneyland where dreams can be achieved simply by the snap of your fingers. Politics in education is an undying cancer and increasing the money allocated to education will lead to this cancer multiplying mitotically. In other words, your argument presents no real solution to the Ebola crisis we have in education. I therefore do say, in closing, that your argument is only but a fish out of water simply struggling, suffocating and now, dying. Thank you for your time
Teachers Should be Paid More

Your starting argument may sound fine and dandy to those who do not know that a public school is funded and run by the local government (private school funding as a whole is generally not struggling due to tuition and private donations, I should be clear that this discussion does not apply to private schools nearly as much). Public schools are generally a direct reflection of the success of the local government in which they are placed. So if they live in a poor and impoverished neighborhood, their students given the supplies to match, but that's a separate debate (whether or not the allocation of finances is fair throughout all communities). Only a fool would look at increased spending as a whole and say "okay now, it hasn't worked". If the average CEO has a record year of sales and brings in more profit than ever recorded, does it go straight to the employers? No. He reinvests in his company for growth, he raises the exec pay rates, he gets bonuses and a new car, THEN MAYBE whatever is left over goes to his employees 2-5% yearly raise (which is generally what they get regardless of the amount of excess funding). Point being ALLOCATION OF FUNDING should be the focus. Not a flat fact of "people got more money", it doesn't pan out. Cost of spending per student DOES NOT mean that those children or their teachers got that funding directly. They simply said X amount when somewhere, and we have Y amount of student, and they created that statistic with division. It DOES NOT mean the funds were allocated to the teacher salary of the students resources. I agree with "teachers should be rewarded for their passion through incentives and bonuses. But how many public schools offer those and in which amounts? I'd love to see those statistics, I had a hard time finding them. I appreciate you agreeing with my point in the importance of teachers with regard to the training of other professions. And if there was an easy way to truly reward good teachers and punish bad ones with incentives, then great. But I feel that raising all teachers pay would eliminate the use of politics for others to get ahead, rather than performance. And for those who under-perform, give 'em the boot.
Teachers Should be Paid More

You really cant blame government for what goes on in the teaching field. Its not the fault of the education secretary that teachers have to fish some money out of their pockets...the reason for that is the capitalism of the US in which whoever is responsible for the allocation of funds chooses which schools to enrich first before throwing the crumps to low-income public schools. In a March, 2015 article, Vox.com reported that the US spends over 600billion dollars on the education sector...this is compounded by the forbes mag report of over 800 billion dollars( blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2011/04/usgs_bar.jpg ) However, in spite of all that, the performance of US kids has not improved, The US has got the highest annual spending per kid but in Math and Science international tests, the kids still do not fair well ( https://rossieronline.usc.edu... ) If we look at it from the viewpoint of government itself, Education Secretary Arne Duncan bluntly admits that increased spending has failed to better the results. Teachers should be rewarded for their passion, thts why we have things like incentives and bonuses...Education may only be improved through restrategising. We are not undermining the value of teachers here, yes engineers wouldnt be there if there were no teachers, but as well engineers would not be there if teachers wages were raised to the astronomical levels you so desire. What I am arguing is that, since teaching is a much easier(important as it is) profession, people would go for teaching alternatively and noone would worry about being an engineer and stuff like that. We'd all just go to school and be taught to teach, because at the end of the day, we get rewarded the same. So teachers are important and yes they should be rewarded but lets be rational about it. Enough is as good as a feast to one thats not a beast...the old adage goes
Teachers Should be Paid More

I wrote that "I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools" because many teachers are ending up in positions where they want to do projects that they end up having to fund out of pocket, and they have materials also that they have to fund out of pocket. Literacy rates are fine and dandy, but they are not a direct reflection of the needs of a society. A spacecraft or a power grid isn't run by a book, it's run by a computer. But that's a literacy vs computer knowledge debate hardly related to my topic. We can't compare apples to oranges here, every country has different demands and needs. I didn't argue that women here should be afraid to educate themselves because they're afraid that rebels will stone them to death for stepping outside of moral boundaries, because those aren't issues related to our women. Let's focus on a fact based on America. The average K-12 teacher (in America, not Zimbabwe) earns $44,600. Average student loans of a college student in America is over $30,000. Many teachers struggle to pay back the loans required to educate their students. Sure, what they do is out of passion and not the love of money. But why does that mean that they shouldn't be afforded a living that better rewards them for their passion? The way you state "just get a teaching degree" is part of the problem with America. If teachers don't exist, neither do Engineers, Lawyers, Etc. It's time to realize that a good education in ANY degree involves teachers and educators.
Teachers Should be Paid More

You have argued that more funding should be allocated to teachers in order for them to achieve more of their goals and yet more than enough funds have been allocated to the education department for that purpose. In such countries as Zimbabwe, some kids dont even have a clue as to what a computer looks like and yet they have the highest literacy rate in Africa. Now if you compare the funding of the United States to that of Zimbabwe you find that we actually have an excess of funds and there really arent any needs to match those. Why should government waste resources on satisfying contented wants of the teachers. There is no need to augment the wages of the teaching staff. What they do is out of passion and not the love of money. So what if Floyd is earning $83k per sec. Its his job to wow the millions of enthusiasts that watch across the world and these enthusiasts also include a sizeable number of teachers...He is bringing in a large volume of foreign revenue through boxing yet the teacher is bringing nothing more than boredom to a small uninterested class. If a teacher would get as much as an engineer, who do you think would want to go to varsity for some challenging task when you can just get a teaching degree in college and get just as much cash..clearly this motion does not stand
Teachers Should be Paid More

I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools and I also feel like they should be paid more for the services that they are offering to the community that they are engaged in. Teachers are raising the future engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. But they are not being paid anywhere near as much as the students they are teaching go on to make in those professions. In the mean time, Floyd Mayweather is earning $83,000 per second to beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp in his fights. I feel like America is really placing an emphasis more on sports and entertainment achievement than rewarding those who are actually contributing to the future scholars of America.
killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us)

i dont know what con is doing referring to homosexuals. i am referring to species of the 'homo' clan. if i said killing a deer is not immoral, most people would agree with me. given these are not homo sapiens, they are basically just animals, and can be killed. at best con might havea point in saying senseless killing, even if it's just for deer for example, is wrong. but then again, there's a fine line between what's 'senseless' and what's a 'sport'. in terms of a common vernacular way of saying somehting like 'hunting deer is not immoral', the same can be be said about the rest of the homo clan. there might be some understood exceptions, or possible exceptions. to read so much into it 'senseless killing' is reading too much into it, and getting into semantics.
killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us)

I stand in absolute negation of the Resolution, killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us). I would like start by offering the following Observation, Morals are defined as [1] "considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior"thus we should limit this debate to general Morality and not the views of a few. Senseless Killing is Immoral; It is clearly immoral to kill anything without legitimate reason, it is especially cruel and hateful to state homosexuals should be killed because they different. They are human, they have feelings, they love, they live, and they shouldn't be killed for a belief my opponent considers to be "too different than us". We can look to Executive order 44, the Mormon extermination act, that was passed to kill because of difference. this order lead to the massacre in Hans Mill where unarmed Mormons were slaughtered, men, women, and children. Note my opponent hasn't given any argument whatsoever but merely stated other Species in our family. They haven't shown that Homosexuals somehow stand outside of the law and can be killed without any consequence, Thus they haven't fulfilled the BOP. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us)

is con being serious with all the homosexual remarks, or just joking? either way it makes one wonder about his sexual security if he keeps harping on something that has been established to not be the case..... (semi joking, but there might be some truth to this statement i don't know what you mean by irradiation, i think you might mean eradication. i didn't say to eradicate them, i just said it's moral to kill them. just like it's moral to kill a deer. and over populating isn't the only reason to kill a deer, and not here either. sport is permissible too. i have to reiterate all the points above, about semantics and how to approach the idea of something like 'it's okay to kill a deer'.
Shopping Change Behaviour

I have a 500 characters limit apparently:Looking at past events such as the economic crisis or any trend in the economy, you can see that behavior is affected by the people's income,which in turn affects their shopping habits. It's clear that shopping doesn't affect behavior, but behavior, driven by income, affects shopping.And since you cannot refute any of my arguments, let me say this: if you don't deny my arguments, then i win. always reserve space for rebuttal mate. This isn't even a debate
Shopping Change Behaviour

The recent Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has impacted the world to a significant extent terms of spending patterns of consumers as well as businesses. The GFC is a major economic force that influences both the emotional and mental behaviour of consumers. The world economic crisis has caused an unexpectedly strong repercussions in the economies of all countries. "We are witnessing not only the economic downturn, but also a significant change in consumer behaviour". (Duthel, 2010) The European crisis has affected the entire world economy, contributed significantly to the behaviour of consumers changing their shopping habits and patterns. As the economic pressure caused by the reduction in wages, many consumers opted out from buying luxury goods. However, purchases of daily use products encourage customers to search in the shops offering lowest prices. Consumers are willing to take the time to find satisfying offers, or waiting to drop in price or appearance of the promotion. European crisis had significant impact on customer behaviour in developed countries especially in the United Kingdom. Crisis as a special economic situation determines not only consumer behaviour with specific consequences for the financial situation of their households and unfavourable market conditions, but also by the effects of emotional and psychological. In relation to the European debt crisis, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the subject: The European crisis has a significant impact on YOUR shopping behaviour in the UK?.
I Spy

I want to try an I Spy game. The topic will be either a place/city/historical monument. First round will be for acceptance. Second round will be the I Spy riddle, third round I will reveal the answer. I am new at this, so I am not sure how it will turn out but anyone interested, feel free to accept! I get 7 points if Con doesn't know the answer. Con gets 7 points if they answer correctly. Note: I am creating these myself so it might be easy while others might be difficult. This is just a test round!! example: I spy a portrait of great leaders towering like giants These people with trust and unmeasurable reliance You will not find another one alike, here or another planet For they might have a shortage in granite! Answer: I Spy Mount Rushmore
White People Evil

Well, it is quite unfortunate that Lordrenly has forfeited. Nonetheless, I will continue. Contention 1: The Resolved is an incomplete statement, for it could mean many things.I don't know completely what it could mean. What time period? During certain eras, white people certainly were evil. How many? It is really impossible to say that all white people are evil. It's like saying all black people or all asian or mexican people are evil. Some are evil, some aren't. And one last question arises. What does my opponent define as evil? Does he mean hitler evil? Or stealing a candy bar evil? Evil can be a plethora of different definitions. My opponent should lose points for having such a broad statement and then not even defining it in his 2nd argument, which he failed to even do.Contention 2: White people as a whole are NOT evil.While certainly there are a number of evil white people, not every white person is evil. Look at the saints in the catholic church, and all the people that made charities and give all they can to the poor. How can one say that those selfless and kindhearted souls are evil? What about the children that are killed by psychomaniacs and they haven't even done anything wrong in their young lives? (This actually happens. Children are killed by people that ARE evil) You cannot say that people that have done nothing wrong yet are evil. Who can judge that?Contention 3: To say that white people as a whole are evil is racist and politically incorrect. White people are not evil as a whole. Why does my opponent attack only white people? I myself am white, and was offended by this, and am glad to debate against this topic. If my opponent was black and I started saying racist slurrs against him, that would make me completely racist and to a certain extent, evil (I am not racist and would not discriminate against any race). In conclusion, my opponents statement is morally wrong, racist, and full of holes. If he even has a praying chance of defeating me in this debate, he better have one hell of a 3rd round.
We should have the right to secede from the United States

There is no reason why the Ninth Amendment applies to this case. As for the Tenth Amendment, a cursory reading of the Constitution makes it hard to avoid the interpretation that the Constitution gave the United States the power to preserve its own existence. This power therefore does not belong to the states or the people. Pro provided no examples of the United States supporting secession among athor nations, much less "hundreds" of such examples. Moreover, even if he did provide such examples, this would be an example of the <em>tu quoque</em> fallacy. An entity being hypocritical does not make it wrong. Pro still has not addressed Sunstein's anti-secession argument, presented in my opening statement, and so I take it that he concedes that argument. In conclusion, Pro has not supported the resolution that the states have, or should have, the right to secede.
We should have the right to secede from the United States

If you read the constitution you will see in the 9th and 10th amendments that it explicitly says that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And since it doesn't give the federal government the power to prevent secession, it by default allows us to secede. Most people defy the issue of secession with the word treason. But the celebrate our independence (fancy word for secession) from Britain in 1776. We knowingly committed treason then to better our civil and political rights. So we should be allowed, if it forwards our human rights, to secede from this broken union. In our history as a nation in hundreds of cases we supported secession across the world. We have always tried to enforce human rights and liberty. But in America secession is considered Taboo? WHats up with that? We hide our SECESSION from England as independence which as I said above is fancy talk for secession. SO america is a hypocritical nation. We secede our self, but we refuse to let our people do it themselves. We need the right to secede because it is not forbidden in the constitution, we have always supported it, and we did it ourselves. Your move comrade.
We should have the right to secede from the United States

The right to secede is not expressly denied in the founding documents, but nor is the right to cannibalism. The Declaration of Independence is a document whose significance is historical; it has no legal standing. The remainder of Pro's argument merely a detailed restatement of his "America has lost its moral value" theme. He makes good points, some of with which I can sympathize, but none which establish the right to unilaterally secede, or that we should have that right given the argument I made above, which Pro has not addressed. Pro has not made a prima facie case for the right to secession.
We should have the right to secede from the United States

The reason I believe that we should be able to secede is quite simple. It is constitutional. No where in our founding documents does it say we can't. Our own Declaration of Independence says that when a form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. America has in short became a global bully. Throwing its weight around to get what it wants. If the states and people of this union believe that America no longer defends it rights as it should. Then we should be able to leave the nation. America has taxed us to the extreme. Invaded nation after nation in the name of Democracy. And subsequently pissed of the rest of the world. May I ask you something? Have we ever spread democracy to one of the oil-free zones in Africa? No? Didn't think so. My Arguments (1) America has became morally destructive only serving the means of the rich 1% in the nation while the 99% are forced to grind under the heel of the US government. It invades other nations under cover stories to secure its' own destructive future (2) The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though I applaud Obama for getting us out of Iraq, he is still slow to get us out of Afghanistan, and we are hurdling on a crash course towards war in Iran. Also though he says it's an evil war they refuse to admit the reason they invaded was to secure some money for the corrupted pockets of the government. (3) The Military budget. Haven't you noticed that our defense budget is higher than most of the rest of the worlds combined? And despite all that a rag-tag band of Muslim extremists armed with nothing but box cutters managed to break through everything we had to kill more that 3,000 Americans. So I conclude that America has endangered our lives and destroyed our liberty. And such deserves to be dissolved
We should have the right to secede from the United States

Since Pro has stated a proposition as the debate topic, taken the "Pro" stance and did not specify a shared burden of proof in his opening round, I will take it that Pro has assumed the burden of proof. I will also take it that, by secession, Pro means unilateral secession, which is morally controversial, as opposed to amicable separation of states, which, while rarely practiced, is not.Don't get me wrong; I think that the United States of America would do far, far better without certain states which have low education, high ignorance, high metaphysical gullibility, and strong desires to make all the other states the same way. The states I am thinking of happen to be geographically contiguous, which would make secession convenient, and also have a tendency to pay less in federal taxes than they receive in government spending. If these states up and left, the remainder of the USA would instantly jump several points on the human development indices. So I wish Pro was right.Unfortunately, while Pro states that every state in the United States has the Constitutional right to secede, he does not state where in the Constitution this right exists, and my own perusal of that document has failed to find it. Pro also states that "America has lost its moral value," but even if true, this does not, in itself, establish a right to secede. Pro has therefore not established the resolution.Moreover, participatory democracy is undermined when discontent minorities can invoke, or wield as a threat, a right to secession; in lieu of discussing and resolving their differences, they would be tempted to use secession as a de facto veto over any majority decision.[1]Since Pro has offered no reason to affirm the resolution, and since we have at least one good reason to deny the resolution, I submit that a vote of Con is indicated.[1] Sunstein, C., “Constitutionalism and Secession," University of Chicago Law Review 58 (1991).