BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
He has beaten the best of his generation

The key to being recognized as a great in boxing is too look at who one has fought. Mohammad Ali is considered the greatest of all time (quite rightly so) as he fought some of the best heavyweights the world has ever seen - Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Ken Norton. Taking on and beating the best is the object of the sport. Many of Ali's opponents are also recognized as giants of the sport. Compare this to someone like Prince Naseem Hamed. An outstanding boxer who dominated his division for several years. But he fought few big named fighters, and when he did, like Marco Antonio Barrera, he was soundly beaten, and then retired. Joe Calzaghe had 46 fights. Whilst of course not all of these fighters were world beaters, he fought the best put in front of him, but prior to each fight he would go in as the underdog according to bookies and "experts." Just because someone does not continously fight in glitzy Madison Square Garden or Las Vegas does not mean that they are not good enough to do so. Calzaghe's earliest scalp was a unanimous points victory over Chris Eubank, who is much more universally recognized boxer compared to Calzaghe. It says alot about the dominance of America in the boxing world that it wasn't until the destruction of the previously unbeaten and heavy favourite American Jeff Lacey that the American critics started to take notice, even though that was his 41st professional fight. He was looked down upon because he had never fought outside of Europe. However he corrected this by travelling to America and beating heavy favourites and future hall of famers Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Jnr - who is widely viewed as one of the greatest boxers of the past decade. People may say that Jones was over the hill, but Calzaghe performed a boxing masterclass that shocked people in the States. Throw in victories against the talented Mikkel Kessler and Peter Manfredo, and the evidence is there for all to see. Calzaghe must at the very lease go down as one of if not the best British boxer of all time, and surely as one of boxing's best ever Super Middleweight Fighters.
Hell Naw!

Calzaghe was a good fighter, but get real! He spend 95% of his time beating bums in Europe when the divisions he fought in were jam packed with talent. Why didnt he go to the US many years prior and face Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones before they were pensioners, even then he barely beat BHop. He could have made fights against James Toney at a catchweight and avoided Carl Froch. He held the lightly regarded WBO title for the most part which means little to boxing fans.
of course not he had 5 good fights and four of them were past there best.

thing about joe (slapper) calzaghe is that he was expertly managed , he didn't take risks , he fought bums , people he knew he could beat easily. one thing i would say about joe is he was a good worker , his work rate was second to nobody but the guy couldn't punch to save his life. he slapped . how anyone could put him down with the greats is beyond me . hell i am even welsh myself and cannot stand the cocaine using arrogant nobody. if ever there were a prize for luckiest fighting career ever then Joe would win hands down , oh hang on he wouldn't need to win as he wasn't lucky just a house rat !
It is not fair on the majority in a class to have their lessons ruined by troublemakers. Those that ...

It is not fair on the majority in a class to have their lessons ruined by troublemakers. Those that want and have the potential to learn should be allowed the chance to be educated properly. If selective education is not provided free by the state, there is a danger that parents of bright students will opt for private education or home schooling instead, if they can afford it, further isolating brighter children from poorer backgrounds.
Selective education produces better results. Studies have shown that children of equal ability at a...

The results are skewed because the mere presence of selective schools mean that certain able pupils and certain able teachers move on, not giving others a chance. A fully comprehensive system would ensure good results for everyone. The process of selection is also unfair as the tests children take at 11 attempt to measure their current ability rather than their long-term academic potential. Social class and parental pushing, the quality of their primary school, recent illness, etc. can all play too large a part for the process to be objective.
The widespread use of academic streaming to separate children in a mixed-ability school into classes...

The plan is flawed in that not all children who are good at English are good at Mathematics, for example. Streaming allows a child to be in a high-ability class for one subject and a remedial class for another, which is not possible in a fully selective school. Yet the main objection is that the system is shockingly and openly elitist. Education is a right, not a privilege. A good education should be available to all, not just the elitist stratum whilst the majority are left to rot.
The pupils of all abilities benefit from selective education. Rather than aiming at an ill-defined ...

Effective streaming within a mixed ability school can do this. The difference is that in between lessons, at break times and lunchtimes and going to and from school, pupils mix together socially. This fosters a sense of community, prevents stratification and means that the less able feel valued and more able feel less ostracised. In addition, even in unstreamed classes teachers everywhere succeed in teaching to a wide range of abilities; often the most able students can help to support the slower learners, and gain themselves from the experience.
It is not fair on the majority in a class to have their lessons ruined by troublemakers. Those that ...

Whilst the rest are dumped! The bad schools are those where all those who can get out, have. Funding, pupils, teachers all move on and you are left with those who can’t. How is it equitable, or morally justifiable to dump kids on the scrap-heap at eleven? Abandoning the easy option leaves good teachers open to all, thus showing the troublemakers that are valued and thus remain feeling that nobody cares about them.
Our standing in the world economy depends on a skilled workforce and jobs that can be filled by educ...

This is not necessarily true at all - many leaders of industry, politics and the arts have gone to mixed ability schools. The negative effect is in also producing an underclass. Studies show that those who commit more crimes, truant more, have children earlier, take children earlier take more illegal drugs went to schools in sink areas. It is not acceptable for this to be happening. We cannot abandon the majority at eleven to concentrate on an elite few. All children deserve a good education and the only way that this happen is by ensuring that good teachers and good pupils are taken along the same path as not so able children.
Selection makes it easier for teachers. They can target a certain level at the class and don’t have ...

In no school can there ever be a class of identical ability, even in selective schools, there is a divergence. The mark of a good teacher is in being able to juggle varying abilities. Giving teachers an easy time is a poor way of justifying such an elitist education. In any case, the problem is a relative one; weaker students within a selective school may become unmotivated and perform less well than they would have done as more able students in a mixed-ability school.
The widespread use of academic streaming to separate children in a mixed-ability school into classes...

The widespread use of academic streaming to separate children in a mixed-ability school into classes of different abilities recognises that children have different needs. This should be taken further. It is a more efficient use of schools wholly to stream or be selective. It is also more meritocratic, as bright students from poor homes get the kind of academic education that the rich can purchase for their children in independent schools.
social requirements

As a female child, in whatever society you live in, you are naturally required to help around. We live in paternal societies, so male children are taught from an early age that they only need to work hard and bring money home, while females should not only have a workplace, but also be able to do work around the house, like cleaning, hoovering, washing, sewing, gardening and obviously cooking. S i;t become natural for a mum to ask her daughter to help her around and not do the same thing with the son. So the daughter learns throughout time that it is expected of her to help around, because it;s the only way to become a successful woman.
Money was spent on the East Germany by West Germany following the reunification process

According to Reuters, over 1.6 trillion Euros has been spent on East German since reunification. The majority of towns and cities in East Germany have been renovated. There was hope that East Germany would become like West Germany. The huge amount of money was spent of rebuilding costs, business subsidies, transfer payments and social-assisstance costs. References:http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/09/29/the-dark-side-of-german-reunification/
East Germany is poorer than West Germany

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 symbolizing the inauguration to the end of the Soviet Union- the iron curtain had been encumbered. It was a start of a new chapter for Germany. Germany was officially reunified, a year later. But, twenty years on, Germany still remains divided. There are many economic and social problems in East Germany. The population of East Germany has shrunk by about two million people. There has been high unemployment and young people have moved away in large numbers. Many people in East Germany feel forgotten about. According to a poll commissioned by Stern magazine, 67 per cent of Easterners do not feel part of a unified Germany. Unemployment is 11.5 per cent in the East compared with 6.6 per cent in West. References: [[http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/09/29/the-dark-side-of-german-reunification/]] [[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/germanys-enduring-divide/article1724975/]]
There was a de-industrialisation of the East in 1990

West Germany seems to be the main beneficiary of the unification process of 1990. Platzeck a leader in the social-democrat political party stated that many industries was sold to West Germans. Tthe Treuhand agency was in charge of transefing the industries from East to West. It was warned to not sell the most competitive industries to the West. Platzeck points out that there was a competitive steel plant in Oranienburg which was sold by the Treuhand agency to Kupp. The plant was shut down six weeks later. He adds: " We could have held on to more of the industrial base in the east.” Consequently, eighty per cent of East Germans had to learn a new professsion after the plants were closed down. This caused a lot of resentment. To make matters worse, East Germans earn far less than their Western counterparts. The Average household income in East Germany was 35 per cent of Western Germany incomes in 1991. Today this has risen to 53 per cent according to the IFO economic rsearch institute. There is still a long way to go to bridge the gap. References: [[http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/09/29/the-dark-side-of-german-reunification/]] [[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/germanys-enduring-divide/article1724975/]]
People from East Germany feel disgruntled and this is reflected in who they vote for

The majority of East Germans vote for parties from West Germany but others have found preferred alternatives. The Left Party that is combination of the old socialist party in Communist East Germany and left-wing fringe parties from the West has become the choice of unhappy East Germans. Many who feel that reunification has been a failure. Gregor Gysi, the Parliamentary leader of the Left Party has said that "reunification had a structural flaw in that the elites of the East weren't accepted, and not just the political elites, but the pedagogical, scientific and artistic elites as well." References:[[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6025610,00.html]]
Antartica: A common heritage to the benefit of mankind

A HERITAGE should be protected and passed down on to future generations. It is not fair that our children will not get to enjoy the beautiful sights of icebergs and penguins. It is not utilitarian that—despite what the naive Proposition may say—realistically only few strong countries will exploit Antarctica. A heritage should be protected and passed down on to future generations. The Proposition seems to believe that the problem of humanity is lack of resources. They claim that poverty and underdevelopment and millions of people dying from lack of water all come from lack of resources. However, is that the real problem? Every year billions of tons of food are thrown away. Every year millions of tons of water are wasted through leakage, carelessness and over usage. The real problem isn’t that we lack resources but that we don’t have a system for distributing the resources we have. And without first establishing such system, it will not matter how much resource is gotten from Antarctica because the absolute majority of it will end up in the hands of few strong nations. The Proposition claims that with the help of UN all countries will have equal opportunities. But going over the fact that UN won’t be able to make such arbitrations—which will be elaborated in our later argument—let’s look at the situation from a practical view. Exploitation of Antarctica requires highly advanced technology that can with stand the harsh conditions. Will second and third-rate countries who are unable to provide other the technology or the funding for such expensive high-tech operation be able to have a share of the pie at the end? Of course not. The problem isn’t that we don’t have resources. Even now we have abundant resources on one side of the globe. The problem is that they are not being distributed. And unless this fundamental problem is resolved first exploitation of Antarctica will only enrich the already rich. The Proposition identified the wrong problem.
Antartic resource exploitation is unevitable: Let's do it orderly!

As we said in our second argument, humanity will need to find its way to use Antartica's treasure of resources once they are finished (and tat could be very soon) and no international law or political movement will actually be able to avoid it once the situation is crucial not only to give a diplomatic boost but also to ensure the survival of mankind, however the way it will be done could just not end up being nice and it will create a great political and diplomatic crisis that could even end up in war, and we want to avoid that, specially between the great world military powers. The current Antartic claims are not internationally recognized and are not official whatsoever plus they were just made a if the World was a piece of cake where anyone could just claim a piece of it and eat it, but as we said since the beginning, that is not the way the things are done in the brave new world. Surely when major resource exploitation is imminent in Antartica, those claimant states will try to say tat only they will have jurisdiction under their land and no one else should exploit it however the truth is that that is just naive, since not only some of the claims overlap but also are not recognized plus some states (including USA, Brazil and Russia) have "reserved their right to claim". What will happen next will be a great rush of vultures looking for food and things will get bad in there, because everyone will try to get its share, only few will and wars for resources (maybe the last of their kind) could arise. Under the status quo, the international community is trying to avoid this uncomfortable topic but that is just the worst strategy; the best is to have a clear legal system that is fair for all of humanity and not only a handful of states, and that is what we are proposing (and has been done before at the UN), with a universal principle of Antartic internationalization for peaceful uses, avoiding conflict, something tat will arise if the Artic Treaty System goes on.
No possible over abuse on the resources, just a utilitarian, global benefit

It's strange that the Opp mentions enterprises abusing of the system and "regulations will prove futile", since Antartica won't just be open to everyone to go and get their share of it. It will be very regulated and only those enterprises that win the calls for bids on different resource extractions will be given permission to exploit them (in the same way that none is given permission now and this has been respected). If they break the law they won't be given permission to go on, just as when any state allows foreign companies to extract their resources under guidelines or else they are expelled. I mean, it's not as if companies couldn't be coerced by the whole world, its market. If it were the powerful states that wanted to abuse of the system it would be useless since certainly it will be their companies that will win the calls for bids so they will actually be economically benefited, providing them with that needed soft power. We don't say Tonga needs to compete with its non-existing oil extracting companies but rather that they will be able to acquire the resources depending on their needs plus since the majority of the earnings would go to the whole international community, they will be divided and Tonga will get its share without the need of extracting resources so it benefits every country in the end and at the same time taking care of the environment. On fishing, actually Opp mentions it as an activity they would ban (introduction) but when they noticed we argued good on the current fishing industry they said it's a different case because fishing is renewable, so we don't get it. The truth is that no fish has gone extinct at all as they claim, and the Patagonian toothfish poses a concern for its illegal fishing, not the legal one[[bit.ly/ncWn7l]], which as we mentioned is closely monitored by the EMP to control their level, and it must go on. Tourism: None of the FEW accidents have posed an impact on living species and all have been controlled finally
Feasibility, and Efficacy

Now, the only thing that the Opp has tried to do is to make us carry burdens that we don't have to take. First, the burden that this will actually happen is one that we don't have to prove, because we are not certain about this and if it were to happen it wouldn't be on the immediate future plus this mechanism came from the top of our minds and it's not as if Team México had such a great international diplomatic presence to pass this on. What we have to show is that what we propose SHOULD happen, which means it is fair and gives us a better outcome than the status quo. All of this has been fulfilled by saying humanity needs to get use of their heritage; that this one has to be universally beneficial for mankind, that it helps us prevent future diplomatic problems and that current resource exploitation in Antartica has been beneficial and needs to be expanded. We had a whole argument on how it is the best diplomatic solution but the Opp didn't address how it was not the best but just limited to say "it won't happen". Without sustaining why, the Opp just says that "orderly won't happen" because some powers would abuse the system, but that is a guarantee if our motion doesn't pass. If it does, there's chance. And actually as we have said, the resource exploitation of Antartica is imminent, since non-resources are finite and needed for many things, not only energy, and we mentioned how oil is used for making creams or plastics and as long as Opp doesn't provide humanity with an alternative, we have to contemplate oil and thousands of other non-resources as vital (such as minerals for making batteries too). For this imminent situation the most ordered and feasible is to reach a consensus, because the alternative would be war for resources and we don't want that alternative. War is not ordered, fair nor good.
Ecological wonder: A guardian of the Earth

Although opp tried to predict and disqualify it, an argument on regulations has to be discussed in this motion. Our contrary's argument is mainly a Hollywood stylish apocalyptic prophecy of how important is Antarctica and the consequences of not protecting it. Random statistics but nothing that we didn’t know, global warming is happening. There is however a missing spot in their case, current changes on climate conditions in Antarctica are not due to resource exploitation; they are the result of the combination of various other factors. So if the opposition really wants to stop global warming, this discussion should have turned to include the banning of cars, garbage and fireplaces (among others), which we are to blame for the increment of world’s temperature. It will obviously not happen because cars, to set an example, are necessary; they provide us with an alternative for travelling spending less time and in safer conditions than other means of transportation. Because of their fundamental role we cannot just give them up; the option here is to regulate them in order to mitigate their impact. And our proposed mechanism of limitations serves perfectly for this purpose, as contracts will be granted by bids which will ensure that competitiveness occurs in the stage previous to the extraction, the stage in which companies have to prove how efficient they are, succeeding the one who proves to make the less environmental impact. It's in the best of our expectations that with the help of alternative energies we may have reduced environmental damage by the time we need to start extracting the resources from the Antarctica, but we want to make it clear that our priority is to fulfill people’s necessities and we know that those resources are going to be essential for the future development. The same goes for the claims that opp made about fishing: You can't build a platform being unnoticed, unlike fish and run! Well applied regulations will deter illegal practices