BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must atleast be a graduate.

I will be taking the "Con" in this debate, i.e. I will argue against the resolution that "to be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must at least be a graduate". Since Pro has instigated an affirmative statement, Pro has the burden of proof to show that higher educational qualifications are *essential* for serving as a good Member of Parliament in India, while I will negate the resolution by setting up an argument for why being a graduate is not always the best measure of a good politician, and therefore it makes no sense to enact and uphold such an arbitrary standard by only selecting graduates as Members of Parliaments in India. As Pro has not made clear the format of debate rounds, and has so far only delivered introductory remarks for his argument, I assume that Round 1 is primarily for acceptance, and will wait till the next round before responding to arguments he puts forth in both Rounds 1 and 2. I look forward to an engaging and civil debate. Thank you.
To be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must atleast be a graduate.

Too many uneducated politicians have made Indian legislature a place completely void of logical reasoning and righteous uprising. The fiery orators are always shouting about how the general public is illiterate and hence the country is unable to function properly, but the fact that the face of those public, the elected politicians are not educated is often not spoken of. This also causes the unruly ambience of the Parliament, the high rate of corruption and also a few educated but corrupted ones ruling over the others who are less educated members elected from villages.
To be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must atleast be a graduate.

You have been constantly stressing on the point that Graduation is an arbitrary standard, now you suggest "it is absolutely important to have basic literacy." what do you mean by "basic literacy" this is completely subjective, as to some basic literacy can be defined as capable of painting ones name, at least my graduation was able to put up a specific standard. Hence I don't think you have the right to call it Arbitrary anymore. You mentioned "sufficient education to discharge his political duty" that's exactly the point I am talking about. To discharge ones political duty one must be educated enough, now you failed in setting a specified bench mark which I successfully did. You have mentioned that large fraction of graduates lack basic skills, now I have already answered this in my last argument. I said that there will always be incapable fraction of people, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the capable ones. I have said before, and now I must say again that not every graduate has to be a minister, not every graduate is an IAS or IPS. Please read my arguments before you start writing, otherwise you will render this whole debate meaningless. Now who told you only small no of elite people get education?? Government is providing free education up to school level, then college at minimum costing as well as providing scholarship. Education is a result of dedication and willpower. Like its said in the movie Ratatouille "Its not that anyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere." Do you really think a person with Graduation degree can never understand a person without one? The question of alienating doesn't arise. That Singapore Parliament you mentioned must have had many other reasons, because Singapore it self has literacy rate of 97% and at high standard of education so the alienation of ministers with commoners can't be a result of difference in education between them. The main argument has never been opposed by you. I have said again and again that Uneducated members of parliament are influenced by shrewd educated ones there by rendering their opinions valueless, all those who elected them their democratic right valueless what about that? I have said that from the very beginning and I take a firm stand on my belief that Education and educated politicians can make a difference in this country.
To be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must atleast be a graduate.

Well I quote your last argument "If anything, evidence points to the contrary " that politicians with higher education are more likely to abuse loopholes in India"s deficient political and legal system for their own benefit while at the same time covering their tracks." So according to you lets fill up the parliament house with illiterate people like Lalu Prasad Yadavs wife Rabri Devi. Well you wanted proof, Rabri devi Government vs Narendra Modi Government, which one would a sane man consider better. Now you misconstrue my words, I never said education had anything to do with corruption, the whole point of my argument was that illiterate people are easily influenced by EDUCATED CORRUPTED PEOPLE... so that renders the uneducated MPs valueless... Well you state "Less than 1% of the Indian population hold a graduate degree; in other words, Pro's suggestion is passed as law, more than 99% of the population are instantly disqualified for political office for no good reason." According to Indiancensus.gov.in there are about 3% Indians who are graduates, now who said anyone can be a minister. Its okay to have minimum educational qualification requirement for IAS, IPS, IES etc but we must have illiterate ministers, is it so. All these people have the same work, to run the country properly. If Executive has education as criteria why not the Legislature... If 50% of the graduates are unfit to be hired then hire the other 50% who are fit to be hired... isn't it simple to have people do this who are capable. You use the word "mindlessly" now I never said anything about mindlessly using one to fix the other, on the contrary I suggest a calm mind, intellect and great will power to fix the problems rather than ignoring them. I would like you to refrain from blaming me for something I never said. You gave an example of the Singapore parliament, I would like to state that most of the Scandinavian countries have high literacy rate up to near 100%, the politicians are highly educated, and wouldn't you agree that they are functioning better than Indian government, they are obviously less corrupted.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

Police are under attack in this Country. Heavily. While I will agree you'd have to be a fool not to admit there is SOME Police abuse, the media is what makes these situations worse. More importantly, the public perception of Police procedure combat situations is non existent. There are a million topics that can be touched on this. I will begin with a common public/media complaint: why do Police have to shoot someone with a knife? In Police academy training, Police officers are out through a specific scenario and drills involving this exact scenario. The training is partly based on a very important principle of combat physics: Action beats reaction. It applies to firearms as well. Recruits are put a out 30 to 40 yards away from a "offender" (instructor). The recruit will be told to draw his weapon when he feels threatened. The instructor will charge the recruit with a knife. About %95 of recruits did not draw their weapon on time and we're still "cut". NOTE: a knife is a deadly weapon. Just reinforcing that. What has the testing shown? An officer the majority of the time will not even be able to clear the weapon out of their holster. Action beats reaction. The formula for use of force with these types of weapons is Capability+distance. e.g. a man in a wheel chair with a knife 30 yards away, probably not as life threatening. Ok, so why not use a taser the ? Why does the person have to be killed? Again, a knife is a DEADLY WEAPON. A taser, is a intermediate defense tool. With a HIGH failure rate. Assuming the person is not on PCP, this is how a taser works: when fired BOTH prongs have to enter the skin, or it will have no effect. Something as simple as a shirt, the prong missing it's target, can keep the prongs from entering the skin. So the Officer has effectively placed his life in serious jeopardy but drawing an intermediate weapon against a deadly weapon, and a criminal who more than likely had the action advantage. Tasers also have limited range. So now you ask yourself, well they have partners, why can't one of them use a taser while others have real weapons drawn as contingency? 1- that actually is a very common Police practice. And I agree, should be attempted IF possible. The issue with that is, most Police officers in this country are alone when they have a violent encounter. The court system in the United States has to acknowledge something for police officers who use force or make judgment calls. It's called the three prongs. 1 Rapidly Evolving 2 tense. 3 uncertain. This is what an officer is experiencing when being attacked, or answering any call. I should also mention, it is VERY common, for an assailant to be shot multiple times and still attack officers. Statistics for you: the average gunfight/assault of an Officers happens at 3 to 6 ft from the assailant. The average gunfight lasts 1.25 to 4 seconds. It takes the average officer 1.75 seconds to draw a weapon. To conclude, Police will , can, and should shoot an assailant in most cases with a deadly weapon.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

CON failed to provide a single shred of evidence in support of his evidence. We discussed numerous specific aspects related to the subject of police brutality, and how many firearms PRO felt were involved in police encounters, but we never actually got to the discussion about CON's alleged "attack" on law enforcement, nor did we get to evidence for the alleged lack of understanding of the public. CON has utterly failed to meet his burden of proof, while I had no burden to demonstrate.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

CON has once again failed to provide any evidence in support of his assertions. It is clear that he is passionate and knowledgeable about his subject, but he has made assertions which require support. While the use of force may well be tied to core subjects of this debate, they are not themselves the resolutions being discussed. CON suggests that the additional assertions he has made provide “supplemental information” in order to make his case, but so far, he has not demonstrated how they relate to his actual claims. CON’s sidebars about police brutality, use of force, and the average number of firearms, while interesting and no doubt an important part of the overall discussion, do nothing to meet his burden. I look forward to CON tying all the disparate pieces together in the final round.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

Thank you. This debate is absolutely about the use of force. And I am stating facts, to provide supplemental information to paint a picture for the sake of this debate. The discourse in the Country right now in regards to Police procedure, is a direct result of use of force practices WHICH the public does not seem to fully understand( not an over generalization. Only those who are stating Police practices use too much force). All of these factors are most definitely apart of this debate. To put this very plainly: those who believe Police are using too much force as a whole is in fact an over generalization. Abuse is a rare occasion. Does it happen? Yes. # black lives matter will have you believe that they are victims when in fact, the vast majority of police shootings are justified. Even with blacks. It astonishes me the black community does not address blacks killing blacks, which dwarfs the amount killed by Police. So again, I say those blaming Police practices and claiming there needs to be reform, need to understand the statistics, and procedures.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

Thank you for your comments this round. I am enjoying the discourse so far. On to the debate!!!What Point?CON has claimed that the answer I gave to his question prove his point. However, I would like to ask what point it is allegedly proving. The two assertions at the center of this debate are that law enforcement is under attack, and that the general public is unaware of law enforcement procedures. I fail to see how the fact that there is an average of one firearm in play in most citizen/police encounters supports either of those assertions.Red FishCON has made the following statement: “If you can prove to me, that Police brutality/unlawful shootings outweigh the justifiable shootings or use of force, I will lose this debate.” This whole line of discussion is a red herring. We are not talking about police brutality or about unjustified shootings; we are talking about are the two resolutions I referenced in the above paragraph. CON has a burden to prove them; I have made no claims and do not have a burden to prove anything.Closing ThoughtsCON has still not demonstrated either of his resolutions. I would still like to see evidence that the institution of law enforcement is under attack and that the public is ignorant of the procedures of law enforcement. I look forward to CON’s comments in the next round.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

Correct. There is always one firearm in play. And a great deal of officers are killed with their own weapon. You statistics I believe price MY POINT. to be more specific, those who ask questions such as "why do Police have to shoot unarmed persons" are the type of questions I'm addressing. Persons who ask these questions, would not in fact ask them if they were educated on the matter. I believe what you are stating is an over generalization and not disproving or going against what I am stating. If you can prove to me, that Police brutality/unlawful shootings outweigh the justifiable shootings or use of force, I will lose this debate. I can tell you will absolute certainty this can not be proven. Because police brutality are isolated incidents, and highly publicized when they occur, giving the illusion to the public that it is a common occurrence.
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

I will address them presently. Under Attack? CON has asserted that there have been death threats “all across the country,” and that some law enforcement officers have been executed. He also cites “massive riots” as evidence that law enforcement is “under attack. ” Unfortunately, none of these unsupported claims made by CON support his resolution. Law enforcement, as the term is used in the resolution, refers to the institution by which a society enforces its statutes, including courts, prisons, local, county and state police, as well as various federal agencies [1][2]. The resolution being debated here is that law enforcement is under attack, not that individual officers, or even specific agencies are under attack; as such, CON has yet to meet his burden. Public Knowledge CON’s other assertion is that the public does not understand the procedures used by the law enforcement system. Unfortunately, CON has not provided any evidence in support of this assertion; instead he simply asserts that no one who does not work in the field can know it. This is a claim which requires evidence. CON’s Question Con posed the following question: “How many guns on average are involved in a Police/Citizen encounter? ” My answer is one. My reasoning follows: Nearly half of the police encounters in the United States (44%) are traffic stops, most of which are for speeding [3]. With the possible rare exception, the only gun in play here is the one carried by the officer. Similarly, about 15% of police encounters involve the public reporting and crimes, or simply asking for directions or general assistence. [4]. In these situations, the gun/citizen ratio is the same. While I am sure there are relatively isolated incidences where there are many armed perpetrators engaging with law enforcement officers, there are also numerous examples of encounters with a lower gun/citizen ratio, such as situations where multiple citizens participate in police lead programs [5][6]. Given this evidence, I will give the rough answer of: one. Wrapping Up So far, CON has failed to support his initial claims. Also, while I found his question regarding police encounters to be interesting, I fail to see how it relates to his resolutions. No doubt CON will clear this up in the coming rounds. I look forward to the future discussion. Sources: [1] . http://www.bjs.gov... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.bjs.gov... [4] . http://www.bjs.gov... [5] . http://www.dare.org... [6] . http://www.sanantonio.gov...
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

ok well I will put it like this: you said I didn't demonstrate Police being under attack. There have been death threats all across the Country. When the Police brutality debacle started, two new Tork Officers were executed by an extremist. Not to mention massive riots in several major cities. As far as the publics knowledge goes, police work is like anything else. If you do not do it, or even know anyone who does it, you are not going to have a full understanding of it. I'll pose a question to you. It's important that you answer the best you can for the sake of me demonstrating knowledge. How many guns on average are involved in a Police/Citizen encounter?
Law Enforcement is under attack and the procedures are not understood by the public.

This is a topic which interests me, and one I know only a little bit about. I hope this debate proves to be enjoyable and enlightening. First of all, I want to make it clear that CON has made two claims in his resolution. He has claimed that “Law Enforcement is under attack,” and that “[law enforcement] procedures are not understood by the public. ” CON bears the full burden to demonstrate both of these resolutions. As CON has not set up any procedural rules, I will begin presently. In Round 1, CON has done an excellent job outlining a handful of situations in which law enforcement officers should be allowed to use force, as well as describing some basic law enforcement training exercises. He concludes the round by writing that “Police will, can, and should shoot an assailant in most cases with a deadly weapon. ” To address this conclusion directly, I will simply point out that CON has not demonstrated it. He has shown that there exist situations where law enforcement should be allowed to use force, but he has not demonstrated that this is the case in “most cases with a deadly weapon. ” To conclude my comments, I would like to point out that even if I granted the above conclusion, CON has still not demonstrated either of his resolutions. The assertion that police should use force does not demonstrate that law enforcement is under attack or that the public does not understand their procedures. CON has not yet met either of his burdens.
King James Bible (Con) versus Holman Christian Standard Bible (Pro)

I believe the HCSB is a better translation. I will now present several reasons why this is so. Contention 1: It Was Created for Better Reasons The KJB was made because a king wanted an official translation.[1] There were several other translations equally good or better at the time including the Geneva Bible, (Created by the reformers)[2] and the Coverdale Bible, (Myles Coverdale).[3] There was no need for a new Bible, except for the fact that King James wanted a Bible that spoke better of the government, and changed certain words to accommodate English beliefs on pre-destination and the like.[4] Contention 2: Inaccurate or Archaic Translation The translation is archaic, and therefore does not apply the same today. The Greek word, "diafthora" is best translated, "to destroy", however the KJB translates it, "corrupt" in Matthew 6:19. Modern translations say, "destroy", and this is the case in the HCSB. The people at the "Christian Courier" present another fallibility. "(1) When the King James translators rendered Acts 2:47 with the words, "such as should be saved," they ignored the Greek present tense form, "are being saved." The KJV thus yields a sense that accommodates the denominational notion of predestination." Contention 3: Archaic Language The language is old and nearly un-relatable to the modern Christian. With all the, "thees" and "thous" as well as lines we would not understand as fully as the original readers would. The HCSB uses modern dialect which today's audience can easily understand. Conclusion: For these reasons, I believe the HCSB is a better translation than the KJB. Thank you for reading and have a great day! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4][5] https://www.christiancourier.com...
King James Bible (Con) versus Holman Christian Standard Bible (Pro)

I accept the challenge. I believe the King James Bible is perfect and without error. When I say perfect, I am of course referring to its completeness not its divine choice of words, that is, any bible which is complete is perfect. I do not argue that a different word could have been used in certain cases during the translation process, but the words chosen are accurate and faithful. If an English bible says "Word" in John 1:1, and a spanish bibe says "Palabra," that spanish bible is perfect in that case, but if another spanish bible says "Verbo," then that spanish bible is imperfect as the word has been changed in such a way that the meaning is altered. Likewise, a bible would be imperfect if it omitted or added to a verse without sufficent reason (i.e. to make sense of a word being translated). I will clarify my position more if asked to in the following round. On to Pro.