BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
wrong is wrong

Round 3 of the war begins. Prepare yourself.Sorry that it took so long for a response, but everyone is busy right?Now it seems your stance this time is that if christianity is right, then satanism is right. Because of belief. Then you assert that wrong is wrong.Now I have a couple points.1. This is not a debatable resolution.Making a statement, like "wrong is wrong" is something meant for obvious purposes, or educational purposes. Nobody would in their right mind challenge you on this assertion, unless they believed the world as we know it does not exist. But more on that later.This resolution is simply a fact that is stated. Also it is circular reasoning because my opponent is using the word wrong, to explain wrong. That is textbook circular reasoning that gets us nowhere fast.So because of this point, a vote for Con is warranted.2. Satanism is not correct if Christianity is correct.I don't know what world my opponent lives in, but Christianity explicitly states that all followers of Satan are wrong and fallen. This means that Christianity and Satanism are mutually exclusive beliefs. Now. It is true that belief is what drives these religions, but Christianity and Satanism are competing ideologies, not mutually symbiotic ones.Therefore a vote for Con is warranted.3. Belief could be a made up concept.Sometimes, the facts may not be what they seem. The Matrix is a movie that attempts to take this idea apart and analyze what it would mean to live a lie. So note that my opponent by suggesting that "wrong is wrong", is automatically assuming no paradigm shift on the fundamental level. My opponent is assuming the base paradigm of objectivity, is the only paradigm out there. But we all know that relativity exists, and means that this universe is not seen from one point of view. So once again.A vote for Con is warranted.That being said I await my opponent's response.-42
Specialist approach to education

True I guess it does cause kids to become more responsible yet there is also the fact you completely forgot about a specialising approach isn't just one field. A businessman needs to know how to persuade, which requires literature skills. A designer might need to know math to make sure the scaling is accurate (when developing art for a website/game). A single field can only cover so much intelligence, no matter how much you specialise it. A single field can be split into many jobs- each potentially requiring skills coming from other fields as well. After all imagine the music world with only piano players- it would be dull and underdeveloped. That's a little bit like the education system you plan to create, one field will create a specialist but in real terms- not necessarily the best at adapting to the many environments the world can throw at you at any given moment. Sure, google exists but isn't what you said to make kids more responsible? If they can google anything to solve their problems in life, then a change in the education system is unneeded as one field would force many people to rely on sources like google for help even more than the modern day civilians do. Why exactly? Because everything they weren't taught in the field they were supposed to be taught in- they have to self-teach if it's important to that specific job. Well that's going to be my concluding arguments for why such an approach may not work.
Specialist approach to education

Actually I never mentioned the fact that kids should decide what path to choose at an early age. What is necessary to do when kids are too little to decide is to offer tests (that would not cause emotional stress, of course, better in the form of a friendly talk with a kid and his or her parents) in order to determine what skills this or that kid has. I would suggest that these tests have to be non-binding, i.e. recommendatory in nature. Besides, kids may change their field of interest later if they wish, just like at university. And here's an extra pro - kids learn to be responsible. They would feel more involved and begin to THINK themselves about many things that concern their social life and studies, instead of leaving this task to their parents or teachers. They would stop being 'Another Brick in the Wall'. Imagine, you need to build two houses, one is with cement mortar and the other without it. In the first case, you seem to have no trouble. As for the second, I doubt you can built anything. The same goes for education: cement mortar are your inborn abilities and skills, whilst the bricks are new knowledge which you get at school. If this knowledge matches your inborn abilities, you'll be able to develop the latter. If not, well, remember the picture of the house built without mortar. This approach does not actually require whopping sums of money since you don't create something new, you just rearrange the old system. It is really worth money and effort. So, why not to take a challenge?
Specialist approach to education

The cons may not be insuperable but does that make this the right idea for the system? Let's consider how much it would take for politicians to change the public school system which was barely changed in a decade. Another con is your relying on kids do decide what they want to do with their life from such a young age. As Brian once said "Make your life a masterpiece; imagine no limitations on what you can be, have or do". Yet this specialist system would be doing just that- do you believe if people don't choose something early on in their life they don't deserve to be educated in? You might always argue the point that they can always teach themselves but if what you're doing in School is interesting you so little every day of your life, then what's the point of even changing the system? After all if it truly all it does is restrict people and make them regret for choosing to dedicate their life to something, it's just a waste of money.
Specialist approach to education

Of course, the point about the financial side of the question that you made, may baffle anyone starting from a common person and ending with the government. However, it is always a matter of prioritizing. Isn't it true that the sphere of education worth adequate and even excessive financing? I guess, it is since education is a driving force of any country. If you want something to exist in this world, you have to invest in it. It's an extra point when financing is excessive but it doesn't HAVE to be. Schools don't need extra expensive brand new equipment in order to produce highly-qualified specialists. Unfortunately, the presence of such equipment at schools does not guarantee the quality of education. Another point that you have made concerns bullying. In the matter of fact, specialized education does not cause bullying. Bullying may exist at any school with any approach to education. It is all about manners or etiquette if you will. Certainly, it would be weird if we made our children learn strict etiquette rules since we don't live in the 18th century. Nevertheless, some restrictions to behavior should exist. And a burdensome responsibility of teaching children how to behave within society falls on no one else's but parents' shoulders. If, for some reason, parents ignore this responsibility, then no matter how much prestigious a school is or what new methods and techniques of teaching it offers, a child may fail to behave in a decent manner. Returning to the main point, I am supporting the specialist approach because I see that the final result worth implementing it. As for the cons, they are not insuperable. As the French say 'vouloir c'est pouvoir' - when there's a will, there's a way.
Specialist approach to education

Whilst I do see where you are coming from and it's true the education system is old. A pure-specialist program won't work that well. After all let me ask you what would you rather do as a kid, Physical Education which all the "cool" kids are doing or going into programming were you see all the "nerds"? If anything such a system would emphasise on such stereotypes and probably encourage bullying too be more common as people wouldn't understand the different fields and how they work. Not only that but it would also cost the goverment probably a bit to hire specialists to teach EVERY school and EVERY subject in your country. Not even including that the equipment schools have to buy would be extremely different for all the fields therefore meaning for the more popular fields- they might have to buy poor equipment. I have a few decent points I can argue against this but until those are mentioned the two main points are- the money and financial side of things and stereotypes being pushed further encouraging some fields to get bullied.
Specialist approach to education

I think that the goal of education is, first of all, to prepare good specialists. When educational institutions are focused on humanistic education the result can be more than lamentable. In such a case, society gets well-educated people who know a little bit of everything. Definitely, they are all-around intellectually developed people but what society needs today is more specialists who can bring a palpable progress to it. Of course, we all want to be versatile people. However, the reality states quite different demands: employers do not need philosophers and poets. They do not employ people only because they can eloquently express their thoughts. They employ professionals. To my mind, when you receive humanistic education, you miss your chances on a labor market. However, when you do not squander your energies and instead focus on one field, you bring much benefit to yourself, to the field and to society in general.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin] Vs [Your Choice] [Political Debate]

Now I will submit my final argument in favor of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin]. Although Lenin was short lived when the USSR was form you cannot deny the impact Lenin had on the entire world. Lenin's revolution shaped all future communist revolutions across the world inspiring people to fight for the idea of equality. While it's true that Andrew Jackson took on the Rothschild Bankers and won compared to what Lenin took on it simply pales in comparison. Lenin took on an entire corrupt monarchy followed by a new corrupt provisional government and despite the odds he beat them both and formed the Soviet Union and continued to keep spreading Left-Wing ideals across the world. Not only was he against a monarchy and a failing government he was also forced to fight the Russian Mafia who at the time had the support and funding of Winston Churchill and once again despite the odds Lenin's new government prevailed and stood strong when the people needed it to. Lenin didn't just defeat a monarchy and a government through revolution he also paved the road for future Left-Wing Movements world wide along with fighting half of Europe who wanted to restore the monarchy. Lenin took on the whole wrath of the "Right" and won creating ideally the first full fledged Left-Wing country united under Marx's ideology of Communism. Lenin was truly far ahead of his time especially if you look at the polices he implemented for example his New Economic Policy and giving Gays rights a move that is clearly very bold to do especially during the 1920s. While many claim that Lenin "murdered" hundreds of innocent people that is far from the truth as Lenin had to do whatever it took to stabilize the new government that had taken so long to get where it was. Yes people died but if it had not been for Lenin who had to make the tough calls the government would have easily fallen and Russia would be put back into a monarchy which would doom the country especially around the time WWII would occur. All together Lenin's influence and role in this world is simply massive with an entire form of Communism being named after him followed by hundreds of Statues being erect in his name. Not to mention how much Russia funds to keep Lenin's body in perfect condition due to how much of a major figure he is for Russia and Left-Wing movements in general. Sources: https://www.britannica.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.biography.com...
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin] Vs [Your Choice] [Political Debate]

First of all Vldimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution were funded by walstreet. {1} Which is a very intresting thing to note since the big bankers and Wall Street Tycoons put up millins of 1830's dollars towards Jacksons DEFEAT, they didn't want him to win! Second of all, Jackson didn't just take on a monarch, he took on the Rothschild Bankers, who owned all of the Monarchs in Europe at the time and all of the goveronments in the world today. These guys are a lot nastier than Tsar Nicholas, and Jackson remains the only one to have defeated them. {1}.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin] Vs [Your Choice] [Political Debate]

Thank you Con for your argument. I will now Counter-Argue this argument and state how Lenin is far more significant. While it is true that Andrew Jackson did some amazing things and his accomplishments are notable I say they simply pale in comparison to Lenin's accomplishments. Lenin changed an entire country that was backwards and still somewhat stuck in the medieval era. Lenin's views and ideas revolutionized Russia he took it from the Medieval Era to the Industrial Era he would be remembered for decades to come and is still very relevant today. He was so influential an entire new section and type of Communism was named after him that which would happen to be Leninism aka the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat. Lenin's influence and known stature went on for these following decades with him being put in the Soviet Anthem and statues being erect all around Europe. I don't deny Andrew Jackson his fame but he is no where near as significant as Lenin when it comes to accomplishments and his political career. Lenin worked tirelessly and endlessly writing multiple books, papers and thesis on Socialism and Communism coupled with his views and the status of his home country Russia. Like I stated in my first argument Lenin even after being shot still devoted himself to the cause and risked his life in public shouting and giving speeches. Lenin took on an entire country's monarch and won and even after that he stabilized the country even with people like Churchill funding the Russian Mafia to fight Lenin he was able to completely throw off the opposition and take full control of Russia leading it into the next era of it's life. While Lenin didn't directly Industrialize Russia if it wasn't for him there is a high chance it would have taken far longer to Industrialize than without his influence. Andrew Jackson had a big influence on America but compared to Lenin and Russia it pales in comparison. I would like to apologize if my argument seems very small currently a lot of IRL stuff happening but I'll do my best to still debate my opponent.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin] Vs [Your Choice] [Political Debate]

Hello this Debate is to compare two politicians or Revolutionaries [Lenin] Vs. [My Opponent's Choice] and we will argue who the better politician/Revolutionary was in terms of what they did, accomplished and their policies. If you have any questions please just leave a comment and I will get back to you. R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Arguments R3: Counter-Arguments R4: Final Argument R5: Conclusion/Ending Statement Let's try to have fun :)
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin] Vs [Your Choice] [Political Debate]

I believe I provided a source for this in Round 3:There are even more sources for this if you want to look them up:http://www.counter-currents.com...https://www.amazon.com...Now I'd like to address Lenin's Revolution, which is actually more of a bad thing. He usurped property from individuels and brought it under state control, and banned private property, a massive violation of property rights and individual liberty. He also established a communist goveronment which gave rise to Joseph Stalin, who killed over 20 million people for not going along with communism, disagreeing with him, or- just because. The Soviet Union which Lenin founded ended up committing massive human rights violations during it's 74 year lifetime, stole the designes for the nuclear bomb from the US which gave way to other communist or otherwise nations owning nuclear arms. As a result the whole world was in danger of a nuclear apocolypse for 74 years, and stillis today. If the Soviet Union, under Lenin, hadn't stolen the nuclear bomb designs, we would't have to deal with this guy Kin Jong Un who's threatening the whole world with nuclear war via submarines. If he hadn't done that, Iran wouldn't be on its way to nuclear weapons, China wouldn't have Nukes and neither would North Korea. The world would be a much safer place if not for lenin, so we might actually have a uclear apocolypse because of this guy. He was NOT good for Russia, or for the world.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov [Lenin] Vs [Your Choice] [Political Debate]

"Lenin was funded by wallstreet, Jackson wasn't, Jackson took down the Rothschilds, Lenin was property of the Rothschilds. I rest my case." - Con This is clearly slander as there is no proof that Lenin was their property because "They funded him" which is a bold claim on it's own if you were to actually take a look at history you'd see that Lenin got almost no funding at all except towards the end of WWI by the Germans who wanted to assure he would be able to undermine the Russian War Effort and to effectively pull Russia out of the war to ensure that they could focus on one front rather than two separate fronts completely. My Conclusion: Lenin is considered to be the biggest influential figure of Left-Politics as he was the first to install a proper Communist Government without too many contradictions like Napoleon Bonaparte. While Jackson took down a very wealthy family Lenin was fighting a corrupt Monarchy, a corrupt government and even after that he had to fight other political parties and even more monarchies who attempted to restore the monarchy and even after suffering 3 gunshots Lenin in the very end of it all won. He defeated his enemies and stabilized his new government.Lenin had to do a lot of things under-budget such as secret meetings and underground political parties who wanted to out the Tsar and it wasn't until the Germans backed Lenin that Lenin was able to return home safely and start another Revolution this time it being the October Revolution that liberated his people from a corrupt and cruel rule and was the founding father of all future Communist-Socialist movements world wide.Thus Lenin fought multiple countries and ideologies and won, Jackson fought a wealthy family and their bank and won. I'm not saying Andrew Jackson was a bad leader in fact he was a great one but he just pales in comparison to Lenin who brought down the hammer (literally) on Russia. Thus in my opinion Lenin was the better Politican and Leader.
How to get students involved

While his proposition was minimalist in the extreme, I will seek to flesh out a solid argument that sports programs at school are not the best "at risk" programs. First I would ask my opponent to clarify a few things. 1. What is an "at risk" program? 2. Who are these "at risk" programs supposed to help? 3. In what way does this relate to getting students involved? I look forward to my opponent's clarifications and arguments.
abortion

You never know what will happen to any child's life in a formidable family broken or other. That does not matter when deciding Wether to abort or not abort a child. The women made the choice to have unprotected sex the end. Should you spend your whole paycheck if you can't afford a medical bill to come up? Should you antagonize someone bigger than you in a fight. Should you miss work 3 days in a row and hope your boss. Ails you out and you can keep your job? Everything has consequences it doesn't matter if your ready or not it's not your choice once the baby is conceived it is alive and yours!
abortion

So you are basically telling me at any point during pregnancy a woman has the choice because it is her womb and her body. I have given you two opportunities to give me a time frame as to when it is acceptable and you have not answered. I will assume that you believe a woman at 9 month's can pull the plug and that is okay. A living breathing fully functioning alive child. If a woman is a single woman and the father is not around that child can absolutely have a great life are you that blind? Ben Carson had a single mother who was illiterate living in the slums raise him and he became a world famous nuero surgeon. He is also running for President. So don't tell me a child can't have a good life coming into a broken family. The vast majority of people believe in some sort of God no matter what that religion is. If you don't believe in a god that is your choice. That being said you are ignorant again of the fact that at 6 weeks a child has brain waves and a faint heart beat. Would u kill a person on the street who had a faint heartbeat and brainwaves? Of course not IT IS ALIVE and the same damn thing! Condoms do break no doubt but that is why you have that first month to get checked if you miss your period. If you can't do that then that is a irresponsible decision. You know you have had sex you know you missed your period and you should get checked out so you don't have to make that difficult choice months later. I'm not denying that it is difficult and every situation is different but life is difficult. You can't run from life you have to embrace it and run with it, not kill it off when it's convenient and use " it's my body I can do what I want with it as an excuse. There is a body in your body that is attached but seperately functioning. You can put sources down all you want but at the end of the day the vast majority of woman wish they never had an abortion and it haunts them. It haunts them because they know they have had a living human killed inside them. It's not easy life's tough but you can't go around killing people because life Is tough. To me it is the same thing as killing someone on the street. That's how I feel. It should not be your right to take a life past 6 weeks it's Alive. Alive. Alive! Take the loss and move on. In your last argument please tell me since you believe it is a choice up to what point is it still a choice. 3 months, 6 months or up until the day it leaves the woman's body. If you had an abortion at 6 months yourself you are telling me that you did not end a life? That you should get a pass on that. Except for rape and incest? A child in a mother is an amazing thing and a human being. You have to eat and drink from conception to make sure your baby is healthy. Inside the womb it's a baby when it's born its a baby. You can feel however you want that is your choice. Cheers , i'm out.