BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It doesn't matter who (with parties of polar opposites) is elected because the outcome is the same.

My opponent is trivializing the definition of "matter" in his title as something which has an arbitrary definition in this debate; this couldn't be further from the truth. From whose perspective are we talking about here? Would you say that it didn't matter to the people voting in elections between two polar opposites? Who says that the outcome being the same = indifference between the parties? I can't really debate you if we aren't in agreement about the definition of "something not mattering". You also axiomatically say that the only way in which governments can be the same or different is in their level of corruption i.e. they all end up with corruption. You forget the road that they take to get there. "The subtle workings of the two events are truly the same, for otherwise they could not end in the same manner" Boys and girls both end up dead. Are you saying that males and females are the same? They are both humans (governments) and both end up dead (corruption), but they are not the same. Examples: China had/has communism, Nazi Germany had fascism. They are not the same.
It doesn't matter who (with parties of polar opposites) is elected because the outcome is the same.

Of course, you had misread exactly what I said, my point was that parties of polar opposites are the same, that means that I do not need to specify each and every form of Government to address this clearly. A general rule for everything is what matters, not individual, pedantic little thoughts. Also, you attempt to say that I had to specify to whom it mattered. Well, again a generalisation and since Ants, as far a we know can't truly think, nothing matters or doesn't matter to them. They can't detect the two individual states.Again, you try to penalise me for saying things in a general manner, which would be impossible in a two-thousand character long speech. But what is worst about what is said is that no evidence is given against the statement. Therefore it can't be wrong or right in your view. Thirdly, for pedantic's sake, you obviously can't count very well as you use the number '1' twice in a row when listing your points. Another problem with you supposed 'defence' is that you say I only used examples of two forms of Government when in fact, I use more. Such as Geniocracy. My argument was also to do with the causes of opposite forms of Government so comparing my argument to saying that 'all food is the same because corn and cantaloupe both start with "C".'I shall continue with my point making from here on;It does not matter about what the approach causes in the case of two polar opposite parties because the bits inbetween if they cause the same ending they must have the same causes in the middle, maybe masked by different ways of going about things, but they will still all have the same minor consequences into some form of 'end'. These may be in a different order but should be indifferent from each other from any perspective except the perspective of the Human nature of view. The subtle workings of the two events are truly the same, for otherwise they could not end in the same manner. So, in your argument, please feel the impulse to be completely specific.
It doesn't matter who (with parties of polar opposites) is elected because the outcome is the same.

My arguments are as follows: 1) My opponent has failed to clearly define “matter” in his title While I share my opponent’s views of complete subjectivity in our perception, he is clearly missing the point. He uses the argument that because we can’t know anything for sure that everything could be the same. This argument could literally be used to defend any contention, pro or con, and should not be taken as evidence specifically for this debate. He is attacking the very fundamental process of reasoning stating that reasoning itself could be corrupted. While I agree with this, I do not have to prove an absolute to win this debate. Back to semantics: he fails to define “matter”. Does it matter to ants? I think not. Does it matter to me? Yes. Regardless if the outcome is the same, it matters to me. As you have not clearly defined who you are talking about, this is enough for you to lose. He has failed to show why if everything is the same in the end that this means that the time or events before do not matter. And finally, the universe does not care or not care who is elected. It is completely impartial and cares just as much as it does not care. You are confusing nihilism with objectivity. 1) Failure of my opponent to provide examples of all types of governments My opponent gave two examples of government, fascism and communism, as evidence that all political systems are the same for the two sharing aspects such as having corruption and being flawed. He is essentially saying this: all food is the same because corn and cantaloupe both start with a “C”. My opponent as failed to show why everything ending up the same means that it doesn’t matter (objectively or subjectively) who is elected. My opponent clearly did not prove that it does not matter who is elected by failing to state: 1) Who it does not matter to, and failed to make the case for objectivity ruling in his favor, only made the case for indifference 2) Did not provide evidence for all governments
It doesn't matter who (with parties of polar opposites) is elected because the outcome is the same.

Well, surprisingly enough I agree with this statement! But, I shall continue...My first point is that when the party is elected (assuming it is a democratic state) that people choose who will benefit themselves. But the truth is that it is not possible for one party or the other to give a different outcome of they are truly opposites. This all comes down to the fact that two parties of opposites must do things in the middle in opposite ways. Both parties aim for economic growth and putting money into people's pockets. So, if they both achieve their aims then they have the same ends.Secondly, let's take the examples of Fascism and Communism. Both of these very different ideas end in a corrupt state because somebody has to rule and take into account what the public want. Governments in both forms are flawed. In fact every Government is flawed. But the point is that in the end they both achieve corruption and a de-stabilised society. Again, they achieve the same endings.In a democracy, supposedly, the people have the say in what happens so, surely, it doesn't matter who the supposed leader is because it should reach the same conclusion? What the people want. This sort of idea may not work in some forms of Government such as a Geniocracy, but as far as I know, there is no opposite to such a form of Government.My final point is that how can you distinguish to things? Are things truly different? Or is it a Human illusion? Some sort of made up idea. In the great scheme of things, are there different things? Is milk different from bread, or not? We can't know, only an entity peering in, from outside of something can know it's real purpose and what it really means. We are just beings that can somehow make sense of the world with electricity, our brains can tell us things with currents moving and of different strengths. But what's to say we exist at all? What if everything is the same and every person reacts to that stimulus differently? Everything could truly be nothing.
The Independent Study Credit (ISC) promotes unfairness.

The fact remains that a student who takes the time to decide an ISC course to take and request it is more likely to be interested in the course, and as such will actually learn the material of the course. This isn't unfair. It simply removes the "luck" element from class interest. Your claim is that students in ISC classes will only learn enough for credit. But the fact is is that most students in regular classes only learn enough to pass tests and get course credit. ISC students are more likely to learn the material, as it is a class they have chosen. If schools could offer every class that students wanted to take, than ISC would have no use. But because schools cannot offer classes on (for example) Kyrgyz, but do require foreign language courses. Most schools offer classes in Spanish, French, and Latin. Some people have learned these languages, or at least one or two of them. Schools often require up to three foreign language courses. Re-taking classes is not the ideal way to spend time in school. Your recommendation is to take the course for no credit. But shouldn't students who have learned something needed to graduate qualify for credit. Again, I'm not saying we should just fire all the teachers and send students to the library to learn everything they need. But for students willing to take the time to learn something that the school cannot have a class for, ISC is a perfect option.
The Independent Study Credit (ISC) promotes unfairness.

< > "Possible more thoroughly", but not likely. It is unfair to allow ISCs because the students that actually do learn more thoroughly IN the class represent all the students, including the ISC "students" who have a questionable grasp of the subjects they've studied. You present ISC as if it's a thoroughly proven application. It's not. <> Exactly, which is where I base my argument. It is not fair. < > There are classes that specialize for a variety of ways to learn. ISC just allows them the unfair advantage of not clearly realizing their lessons, but learning just enough to attain the credits. < > If this is so, then pursue the course on your own. People do it all the time, everyday single day. But to allow some with a questionable knowledge receive credit for their effort (or lack thereof) is clearly unfair. If everyone cannot participate, as everyone can participate in the public school system, then it is not fair. Thank you.
The Independent Study Credit (ISC) promotes unfairness.

(ISC programs promote laziness) If by "laziness" requesting permission to take an ISC class, making a case for it, and studying on their own enough to prove competency in the subject. (By allowing ISC programs to exist, kids that aren't eligible for ISC are cheated also because they have the burden of learning their subjects thoroughly.) What? A student who actually bothers to take ISC options will also learn the subject thoroughly. Possibly more thoroughly than the students who stay in regular classes, who likely will learn only enough for exams. Although not all classes need be offered as ISC options to all students. But some students learn using different methods than others, and ISC could allow them to learn in a way that works best for them. ISC would also allow for students to take limited-interest classes that not enough other students are interested in to have a dedicated class.
The Independent Study Credit (ISC) promotes unfairness.

ISCs should not be acceptable as a class credit by high schools or colleges. ISC programs promote laziness, which cheats the student of the thorough education that her/his peers receive at a proper school in a proper classroom. It encourages youths to take short-cuts, instead of going through the formal and widely accepted method of learning. By allowing ISC programs to exist, kids that aren't eligible for ISC are cheated also because they have the burden of learning their subjects thoroughly. They are held accountable for the knowledge they've assimilated with greater scrutiny, whereas the ISC student does not have the same expectations placed upon him/her. ISCs promote unfairness on both sides.
Evolution SHOULD be taught in public schools.

Well I disagree on your view that schools shouldn't teach religion nor evolution. You can't count on parents to teach their kids this stuff. I go to highschool and if I ask someone what the evolution theory is they won't be able to describe it accurately or they won't even mention the name Darwin in their explanation. And that's because we haven't learned about evolution yet (I'm a freshman). However, we have learned about many religions and their origins, we've learned things our parents didn't tell us. Your proposition is like the one in Communist countries where they like to keep people ignorant. Then every time a citizen disagrees with a politician he will scream "GOD!" or "EVOLUTION!", and the citizen will find himself incorrect simply because he doesn't know what the politician means. You can't count on the parents to teach them everything. Many parents don't have the time to teach their kids what they now learn in school for an entire semester. And if the parents fail then when the kid grows up he won't know either and he won't be able to tell his/her kids and so on, until the elites that have the time to educate their kids just become way more intelligent than the masses. What you propose will make it even EASIER than it already is now to kick the lower class people.
Evolution SHOULD be taught in public schools.

I never said that religion wasn't taught in schools. In fact I said that religion WAS taught in schools but it should NOT be. Thank you for backing up my point with your opening paragraph. You then go off talking about the difference between speculation and theory. I'm glad that you can tell the difference, but in this case it's irrelevent. You cannot prove evolution right as I pointed out in my last argument. In order to do that you would have to have been there when the world began and you would have to convince the other person that you were there. It's impossible to prove it. Which by your standards makes it a speculation not a theory. It takes a leap of faith to accept evolution just like it does any other religion. Evolution is a religion. It's just a new kind of religion that instead of having GOD as it's ultimate creator and therefore authority, it places natural selection, survival of the fittest, and random chance as it's creator and authority. You go on to say that there are no evidences against evolution. I'm guessing you didn't read the three links I provided. If you had you would know that there is tons and tons of evidence against evolution. Whether you think that there are stronger evidences for evolution is not the point. The point is that there are very strong evidences against evolution and screaming "THERE'S NO SUCH THING" as you did in your last paragraph, doesn't make the FACT that there are evidences against it go away. I can scream "There's no such thing as evolutionists" but I very much doubt that you just suddenly disappeared. I like how instead of trying to refute the evidence on those websites you resort to giving me a quote about Einstein and proving him right or wrong. Again, I'm not trying to prove anything except that you cannot prove evolution. Consequently, Einstein believed in intelligent design. Just not a personal GOD. You did not give any evidence that evolution could be proven. You did not have an answer to the evidences I put forth against evolution. What you DID do was compare evolution to greek mythology in your first paragraph by saying that "so if religion is taught then evolution should be taught too. Some people believe in GOD and others in science." Which actually strengthens my argument that evolution is a religion just like creationism is. Again I say that none of these should be taught in school. Just the FACTS. Let the parents teach religion at home.
Evolution SHOULD be taught in public schools.

"In public schools children should be taught the FACTS of things. The LAWS of things. Not theories, and not religion." Well I know more than anyone that religion is taught in schools. Because the #1 thing on my mind is that homework I have on Greek Mythology and the other one I have where I have to read a bunch of laws in the Torah. So if religion is taught, evolution should be taught to. Some people believe in God and others in science. And in science class they also taught us the difference between a theory and a speculation. The belief in a God is a speculation, Evolution is a theory. Here's the difference: A speculation cannot be proven right nor wrong. Christians at once thought that paradise was up in the sky and that there was hell in the "underworld". Notice this was when they thought the earth was flat. But then scientific discoveries were made to prove it wrong and Christians gave it an excuse such as "Well it's an imaginative paradise up there!" or "We didn't mean it was literally up in the sky" or they just sentenced the scientists to death. Evolution however, is a theory. "Evidence against evolution." NO SUCH THING! Einstein said "There is not a number of statements that can prove me right, but one alone can prove me wrong". Evolution hasn't been proved wrong, all evidence found today agrees with evolution, however no evidence agrees with religion. Religion keeps being questioned by scientists and religious people just keep on making, for lack of a better word, excuses.
Evolution SHOULD be taught in public schools.

First off, you make an argument that if we should stop teaching evolution we should also stop teaching sex education. This argument rest on two things. One, is that we should teach sex education in schools. We should not. Sex education is something that should be taught to kids by their parents. Secondly, it makes an analogy between evolution and sex education. You forget that sex education is fact and that evolution is not. You say that "a theory is the most advanced understanding of something you can have in science after a law." That is true but it doesn't make a theory a law. Your analogy between evolution (theory) and sex education (law) doesn't hold up. You try to tie them together by saying that "if you won't teach evolution because it might contradict someone's religious beliefs then you shouldn't have sexual education either." The question isn't whether or not something contradicts someone else's religious beliefs it is whether or not what's being taught is true. Your say in your second paragraph that "there's lots of evidence pointing towards the theory of evolution, therefore kids should be taught to keep an open mind and think for themselves on the possibility that evolution is real." There's also alot of evidence against evolution and for creationism so by your logic we should also teach kids creationism and to think for themselves on the possibility that GOD is real and creationism is the way the world was made. Evidence against evolution and for creationism. 1.Believing that there is an eternal GOD who has always been takes a great deal a faith. (I would never try to PROVE to anyone that GOD exists) However, once one takes that leap of faith creationism is completely logical. Evolution takes the same huge leap of faith. Something cannot just pop up out of nothing, therefore something had to be there before the world began to start the evolutionary process. In order to believe in evolution you have to just accept that something was there that started the evolutionary process. It's the same leap of faith required for creationism. However, unlike creationism evolution isn't logical even after you take this leap of faith. When was the last time you threw a bunch of buildings block up in the air and into each other and the randomly fell into a castle? Or even one wall of a castle? http://emporium.turnpike.net... http://www.ideacenter.org... http://www.exchangedlife.com... These websites give many evidences that point towards creationism and away from evolution. The bottom line is however, like I said earlier it is impossible to prove creationism. All one can do is submit evidences for it. What I have showed you though is that it is equally impossible to prove evolution. If anything evolution is more of a leap than creationism. So what should we teach in public schools? Neither. In public schools children should be taught the FACTS of things. The LAWS of things. Not theories, and not religion. That duty should be up to the parents. It is way beyond time that teachers stopped wasting education funds teaching kids their own bias, whatever it may be, and started teaching the FACTS.
Evolution SHOULD be taught in public schools.

Despite of many people's religious beliefs, the theory of evolution is one of the most advanced in science. If you won't teach evolution because it might contradict someone's religious beliefs then you shouldn't have sexual education either where they teach you how to practice safe sex. Unlike what many religious people say, evolution is not "just" a theory. A theory is the most advanced understanding of something you can have in science after a law. Before something becomes a law, it is first, just a theory. There's lots of evidence pointing towards the theory of evolution, therefore, kids should be taught to keep an open mind and think for themselves on the possibility that evolution is real.
Evolution SHOULD be taught in public schools.

See your still working with the assumption that evolution is proven fact and extremely important to learn. That hasn't been decided that's what we're debating. When was the last time you saw questions about evolution on a application for a job? When was the last time you heard evolution as a major issue in a political debate? But yet you say "the citizen will find himself incorrect simply because he doesn't know what the politician means." If we were debating whether or not economics (fact) history (fact) or government (fact) should be taught in school then you would have a point there. But we're talking about evolution (theory) which has nothing to do with job applications or political debates. You also say that my proposition is like one in communists countries where they like to keep people ignorant. Actually in communists countries they indocrinate kids in school with what government and teachers want the kids to learn, which is more like what your proposing by teaching evolution/religion in school. Also, as far as keeping people ignorant; what ever happened to picking up a book on your own and reading it? Is your generation completely imcapable of teaching themselves? Do you have to wait for a teacher in school to tell you to study something before you'll look into it? I know alot of people your age and I really don't think that's the case. Teaching evolution/religion in schools does NOT make paople ignorant. It leaves them the oppurtunity to study these things on their own and keep an open mind about all religions away from the bias of teachers. You still did not refute the evidence I put forth against evolution. You still did not refute the argument I put forth describing how evolution is actually a religion. You still did not give good reasons why religion should not be taught in schools. Evolution/religion should not be taught in public school. Instead we should be spending the money currently used for these programs to better teach facts. Facts that are going to matter in a job application. Facts that are going to matter in political debates.
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

Selena Gomez got her 'lucky' gig on Barney when she was a youngster. Her mom had her when she was only 18!! Selena goes around talking about not to have kids at a young age TO YOUNG KIDS"but kids are not going to take that the right way. Their minds aren't even fully developed. The majority of kids (especially these days) think "oh i wanna have a baby at age 16 and i'll bring him/her to a talent agency and then they can become famous?!" cause what mom wouldn't think their kid isn't cute? I mean look at the kids on the maury show? Selena gomez also lip sings in almost all of her tour performances. There are kids out there who have real talent, and selena isn't one of them.
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

Next time you go on Wikipedia go down to the bottom of the page. You see those? They're called sources. Have you provided me with a single source? No. The FACT of the matter is: Selena is an adult, if she wants to smoke she has every right to. If she wants to post pictures of her smoking she has every right to. If parents want to prevent there kids from seeing these pictures they have every right to. The characters she portrays in her films and T.V. shows are good role models. Her philanthropy makes her a good role model. Her smoking makes her human.