BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should have joined the League of Nations

I accept. I would like to thank the pro for hosting the debate. As the Con side I will explain several clear reasons why the United States should not have joined the debate. 1. The League of Nations was weak. The League of Nations was incapable of effectively dealing with conflicts. For example, radicalism spurred fervently in Europe during the inter-war period[1]. Fascism and Communism became popular while the League of Nations became inept. The League of Nations did nothing of significance to stop conflicts. So in the inter-war period we saw the Depression, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of a Third Reich, and the Spanish Civil War. The League of Nations did nothing to stop the Depression or alleviate the burdens associated. The League of Nations did nothing about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Nevertheless China was extremely unstable during this period yet not a peep of support was given to China. The League of Nations at least attempted to impede the Italian invasion of Abyssinia by having the United Kingdom and France slap Italy with sanctions[2]. But that action only pushed Mussolini more into the hands of Hitler. One could say this action helped enable Hitler to commit to fighting a world war knowing he had a new ally. The League of Nations did nothing about the Adolph Hitler and him violating the World War 1 surrender conditions. So Hitler was able to re-militarize Germany without anyone doing or saying anything about it till it was too late[3]. 2, The United States became more powerful than all of the countries in the League of Nations. The United States nor the Soviet Union were members of the League of Nations. We saw who was competing for global influence in the post World War 2 period. Neither of the main super powers of the Cold War were ever member states of the League of Nations. 3. The League of Nations was only ideal not practical. 4. "Joining the league was in our best interest, peace without having to go to war" This is a real erroneous assumption. I will quote one of my favorites by Alexander Hamilton for this one to be decisively clear. "Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others "-Alexander Hamilton Remember, Neville Chamberlain thought he secured peace in Europe with the Munich Agreement. But obviously peace was not secured and millions of people had to die because the wrong actions were taken. 5. To quote the British historian, AP Taylor's assessment of the League: "The League died in 1935. One day it was a powerful body imposing sanctions, the next day it was a useless fraud, everybody running away from it as quickly as possible. Hitler watched." The League failed to stop bullets from flying in Abyssinia, Manchuria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Spain. The United States shouldn't have joined such an inept organization. [1] http://ap_history_online.tripod.com... [2]http://www.johndclare.net... [3]http://www.johndclare.net...
R: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Therefore, if he is to beat me, it has to be with arguments already made. With that, I will go to Crystallization (voting issues in favor of PRO): 1. Value- Societal Welfare ---I am the ONLY one in this debate to offer a value. In LD debate, values have essential importance (just read the first line of this link: . http://en.wikipedia.org...)... Even if you do not accept this, you must accept the fact that I am still the only one that gets any good (and moral) ground out of my side of the debate. I have shown several times the value achieved in rehabilitation over mitigated and useless restitution. Thus, the only logical side to vote for is PRO. 2. Criterion- Integration ---This, if anywhere, is where I show diversity of the CON side. Everyone's goal is societal welfare, but as shown through the evidence, recidivism rates are high, and only rehabilitation can solve it. Since this is the ONLY evidence brought up, it is flowed through. And it makes sense, why should these criminals care when society turns their back on them. It has been shown throughout history that when you attempt to help someone or give them encouragement, they succeed more often. And even if you don't believe that, I still shown it through evidence. 3. More Jobs ---I really don't need this to win. But it is still nice how there can be A) the same amount of security guards, and B) Jobs on top of this through the rehabilitation methods. Not only that, but high quality jobs. It is just one more benefit on the path to societal welfare. 4. Reach for the more logical way to achieve the GOAL. ---The only method put forth to decrease the recidivism rate IS my criterion (and side really). HIS STANCE is actually what created the high recidivism rate. And since he gave no argument as to how his side could help it or my side could hurt it, we really ought to do this. Again, "Just the attempt at it shows that we care about A) The victim and B) The society. Throwing them in a cell doesn't show we care, helping them through their assumable tough life does. " ---Finally, I would like to point out that I did not directly refute my opponents points. This is (obviously) because they were all dropped. I therefore urge you to consider my proposition above my opponents, both for the reason that my case shows improvement in the system, and his case just says that I am dumb (or something like that because of some random books). I showed how this is ridiculous and I showed how he contradicted himself immediately after. His refutation after that falls, and even if it stood, I still give better ground. For these reasons, I urge you to vote PRO! Thank you for this round and good luck!
PART 2 the 4th Dimension is evident in tge process of THOUGHT, NOT the concept of time!

1. "If we remove the unit of time and only use distance, We percieve how objects move through out space solely by angles of shadows and distance between objects. It may be hard but its possible. " === if you remove time, There could be NO "moving". 2. "Time is either present and neccesary for all dimensions to exist, " === whah? No? Why? Support? "Basically, I dont have to know the velocity of a car to know that it is in motion. " == yea, You just need to know that the car has a non-zero velocity, Not the exact value. The point is that motion is the changing of position with respect to time, W/o time, You cannot perceive motion. also, If you define dimension to be related to perception then there could be vastly more than 4 dim. You see color is also a dimension, It allows you to distinguish between 2 identical cubes. Mass is also a dimension, It allows you to distinguish 2 objects similar in shape. . . . 3. I still don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you show me some significant implication if we view the 4th dimension like you proposed?
PART 2 the 4th Dimension is evident in tge process of THOUGHT, NOT the concept of time!

I see your point and very well argued. However lets examine "time" as a means of percieving objects moving through space. 1. This what i mean by, "relative to other objects. " If we remove the unit of time and only use distance, We percieve how objects move through out space solely by angles of shadows and distance between objects. It may be hard but its possible. 2. I say that to propose exactly what you expressex, Time is either present and neccesary for all dimensions to exist, Therefore can be deamed a dimension of its own. Basically, I dont have to know the velocity of a car to know that it is in motion. 3. Further more, Thoughts, Metaphysically occurences, 6sense, Intuition. These are the things i believe we can study more in depth if we consider the possibility that the 4th dimension can only be percieved by the mind (not the brain but the mind). I would give supporting detail but i dont think you adressed that point so to be fair i juat rephrased it to sound less, Taboo.
PART 2 the 4th Dimension is evident in tge process of THOUGHT, NOT the concept of time!

seems to be an insignificant distinction even if it was true. 1. "Time is not neccesary as a coordinate to specify a point on the xyzplane" === trivially true. But then you said "BECAUSE objects in the xyz plan are forever moving through space. " which is false because motion is the derivative of position with respect to time. If there were no time, There would be no motion. Also, Idont understand what you mean by "objects continually moving" as an explanation for time is not neccessary. 2. Without time, You cannot perceive an object's speed and the world would be static simply because the definition of speed involves taking the derivative with respect to time. 3. Huh?
PART 2 the 4th Dimension is evident in tge process of THOUGHT, NOT the concept of time!

New rules, More time to respond, If you cite a souce, Put the argument in your own words (if you can) so that i can debate you and not a 3rd party. 1. Time is not neccesary as a coordinate to specify a point on the xyzplane BECAUSE objects in the xyz plan are forever moving through space. Meaning time is nothing more than the distance between celestial bodies and how said distances change relative to eachother. 2. From what we know about the xyz plane, It is only logical to assume, If we were to take take the z axis away, Perception WOULD be limited. So how does time help us perceive in a way the objects around us already dont? 3. However in thought, It is possible to percieve with out the limits we know day to day. Gravity, Thermo dynamics etc these rules are not present in thought even though the effect of said perception is real.
AAN Tournament : This house endorses Death Penalty

I do not endorse the death penalty and will be arguing against it. My arguments against the death penalty are as follows:An Imperfect SystemFirstly, and most importantly, human and legal error are always possibilities. To endorse the death penalty, you must also endorse the unpleasant truth that innocents may be executed. When human judgement is required to make decisions, human error, given enough time, will eventually occur. The number of those who are guilty and executed may make the number of those who are innocent and executed look negligible, but a human life is more than number. Sadly, this argument can be supported by actual examples of wrongful convictions[1] and wrongful executions[2, 3] of innocents. Risking innocent lives to take guilty lives is an unacceptable solution to any problem in a society that likes to call itself civilized. Missing the PointNot only is the death penalty unacceptable, it's counterproductive. There's no need to risk innocent lives when alternative, and better, as I'll argue, solutions to the same problem exist. The death penalty accomplishes two things; It removes a possible threat to society and provides what some would call justice. Killing an individual who may be a threat is counterproductive in more way than one. To begin, the death penalty is far more expensive than life without parole[4], meaning it's not the most financially effective way of removing a possible threat. Not only is the death penalty costly, it also kills a potentially contributing member of society. Why kill a threat when it can be turned into an asset? For example, Norway hasn't has no death penalty and has a maximum sentencing of 21 years[5], but as Time says, "Within two years of their release, 20% of Norway's prisoners end up back in jail. In the U. K. and the U. S. , the figure hovers between 50% and 60%. "[6]. A productive member of society is better than a dead one. As for the "justice" aspect of the death penalty, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, two wrongs don't make a right, etc. If death penalty endorsers endorse the death penalty for the good of society, which, as I've shown, it doesn't do, revenge style justice should play no part. The revenge style justice of the death penalty makes it no different from common vigilantism. Do As I Say, Not As I DoTo kill a human as punishment for a crime, such as killing a human, seems counter intuitive, and for good reason. If the death penalty is illegal when it's carried out by a vigilante, it should be no different when it's being carried out by a governing body. After all, punishments made by a governing body in a democracy can be described as the collective vigilantism of the governed, and in undemocratic types of government, the death penalty is even closer to vigilantism. ConclusionThe death penalty is inherently risky, counterproductive, and, even if the previous weren't true, unacceptable. References: [1] . https://www.aclu.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.deathpenalty.org... [5] . http://mic.com... [6] . http://content.time.com...
AAN Tournament : This house endorses Death Penalty

Rules:1. Bop will be shared2. My opponent will start by giving giving his case immediately in R1 and to even out the rounds he shall pass the lastRounds:Round 1: PRO : -NIL- CON : Acceptance,ArgumentsRound 2:PRO : Arguments, Rebuttals.CON : Rebuttals and Counter-RebuttalsRound 3:PRO : Rebuttals and Counter-RebuttalsCON : Shall pass this round.And I think think that about settles it. Any questions can be clarified through PM.I wish my adversary Good Luck!
Artificial Intelligence will take away job opportunities

Preferably? As you are opposing the proposition, I do not understand why you include this word in your opening argument. Nonetheless, answer me these questions. What is intelligence? Is there such a thing as artificial intelligence? I would suggest that intelligence is intelligence, whether it be organically derived or non-organically derived. That is to say, human or mechanical. What is a job? I would suggest a task or function, primarily done to facilitate survival. What we need to ask ourselves is, does organic intelligence have any other purpose other than to facilitate the next stage in the evolutionary process. If not, then perhaps our job might eventually be done.
It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

A simple Google search will find statistics akin to those I stated, I am not going to waste my word count. Your second point is a non sequitur. You still cannot assert that art is essential for the invention of new technologies, but I can still assert that science is. My very first point gave a link to a website listing people who have died or been injured as a result of lacking scientific and critical thinking. How many people have died as a result of not being educated in the creative arts? Science is not an ivory tower any more. Scientists are not the only people who need to have an understanding of science. Science is funded mainly by governments, and people control the government. People need to understand what science they should pay for, so that research money goes to projects that are legitimate and useful. In conclusion, I am not saying that creative arts are useless, but people need to be educated in the sciences more than they need to be educated in the creative arts.
It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

Thank you, Con. Firstly, where are these statistics that you quote sourced? They cannot be listed as valid until they can be confirmed from a reliable source. Secondly, the education in the creative arts assists in developing imagination, in those that it does not come naturally to, which creates more imaginative people to invent. Thirdly, your point that people are educated for their jobs is incorrect. People take specialist training for their jobs, but standard level, general education, is aimed toward increasing their quality of life, their emotional intelligence, and honing their life skills, so that they survive alone in an adult world. For this purpose, the creative arts is more important than the sciences, as it gives you a broader, more applicable real world knowledge than the sciences does. In conclusion, it is clear that the creative arts are a more foundation level learning, and is more important for development of mind than the sciences.
It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

You accuse me of false cause, then cherry pick Andrew Wakefield. It is incredibly difficult to believe in things like homeopathy and vaccine denial when you know the science, and though I was unable to find any studies on the association between science education and the topics on the website (for or against, I don't think research has been done), here are some statistics for you on some issues that are important: - 97% of scientists believe in human caused climate change, compared to under 50% of people in general. - 0.15% of scientists believe in creationism, compared to 40-50% of people in general. Scientists and engineers are exceedingly imaginative, but aren't necessarily educated in creative arts. You cannot make the assertion that Da Vinci would not have thought of his flying machine without creative arts, but I can definitely assert that without an understanding of science he would not have. The amount and quality of jobs matters because that mainly why people are educated
It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

Thank you, Con, for the argument. In regards to your first point, the fallacy of false cause has occurred. We know that educated individuals, like Andrew Wakefield, have before entered the Anti-Vaccine and alternative medicine bandwagon, because of financial conflicts of interest. This means, that even educated people could enter that site, because of another reason, for instance, being convinced by a charismatic individual or group. If you can prove that lack of education is the cause of those people entering that website, then the point stands. Two cavemen with a rock on the end of a stick could never have made that rock on a stick without the imagination to believe it possible, in the same way that Da Vinci's creativity allowed him to imagine the flying machine, and his many other inventions, even though he did not have the science to create them. Why does the amount of jobs and their value matter? The creative arts allows for people to learn to think, and not just work.
It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

Three points: 1. http://whatstheharm.net... If the people listed at this website had been better educated in science and critical thinking, there would be vastly fewer of them there. 2. Since two cavemen stuck a rock on the end of a stick we have been using science to improve our lives. We can go without the next generation of creative artists, but we cannot go without the next generation of engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, medical doctors etc. 3. We could argue all day about the merits of science vs creative arts, but when it comes down to it, a huge matter is which area has more jobs and jobs that pay more. The answer is science. (http://www.savethestudent.org...).
It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

I am of the opinion that it is more important to be educated in the creative arts than it is to be educated in the sciences. Education in the creative arts teaches student to think, rather than to solve. The creative arts is unbounded in that anything in the student's mind can be created, which provides an opportunity for philosophy, discussions about the metaphysical, and an intellectual advancement that is not available in the strict, law bound area of science. This teaching of philosophy assists in developing life skills, and developing a person spiritually and emotionally, as well as developing free thinking minds, rather than just developing intellectual minds, which, I grant, is still important, but is less important than developing emotion, and free thinking, which are tools for advancement in society. Finally, the creative arts are more important than the sciences because the creative arts results in a creation, which can convey emotion and thinking to future students.
The United Nations becoming more like the League of Nations

Pro's arguments consist of specific incidents in which Pro alleges that the UN did not act. I will respond to each in turn and show that the UN in fact did act, or that inaction was the best action to take. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict The UN has played a central role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has been expressed by providing life-sustaining support to Palestinian refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This includes education, healthcare, and social services to 5 million refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars [1]. Providing sustenance to refugees counters the radicalizing force that leads many Palestinians to attack Israel and thus escalate the conflict. The UN's assistance to refugees has a direct and powerful impact on the alleviation of the conflict. The UN has also provided a platform for Palestinian political claims via the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which assisted many Palestinians in returning to their homes [2] The main angle that Pro comes from in the UN not being effective in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the US took the most action, citing numerous incidents of the US working to prevent war. But this line of logic does not work because it ignores the fact that no solution is worked out: any acts that the US did to do peace accords or enforce solutions is null. The most effective force in the region is the UN because they are the ones that are coming through on promises, contrary to every other force in the region by caring for the refugees and preventing radicalization. Gambia This argument is incredibly vague. The only thing I can find reference to is that the Gambian election was seized by the military, but it was wise for the UN to evacuate for the UN is not a fighting force but merely a cooperating force: bringing together member nations to work together to resolve the conflict. The UN does not have a large army to send in to protect the elections from the military. Any attempt to do so would have resulted in needless deaths. Evacuations from Alleppo Those leaving will be bombed by ISIS regardless, there is nothing for UN to do about it since the UN does not have an army to destroy ISIS. What the UN does do is distribute food and shelter to those making their journey out of the city so that they do not starve to death while escaping [3]. They also provide shelter so that those leaving Aleppo don't die in the desert after leaving. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.un.org...