BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

SOURCES http://www.nytimes.com... http://blackbirdpress.org... http://www.forbes.com... INTRO I have accepted the Opposition side of the motion that perfection should be considered undesirable. To start, I would like to define this motion. I agree with the Pro's definition of perfection. I would like to point out that the word 'undesirable' is in the motion. This means that the Proposition is suggesting that we should not even try to strive for perfection, and have lower expectations. Since the Pro did not have a weighing mechanism for this debate, I will issue one now. I would like this debate to be judged upon whichever side can best prove that we should or should not strive for perfection. POINTS 1) High Expectations Judge, even if we can never reach it in the end, isn't it important to aim high? According to the New York Times, most of the time, when a person sets a goal for their self to achieve, they end up below their expectations. So therefore, if we set a low or average expectation for ourselves, we can expect to end up below average, or having not achieved our goal. I agree that perfection IS impossible, however, if we set an unachievable goal, we may end up not getting it, but we will at least have a better result than if we did not strive for perfection. Also, according to Forbes, having high expectations actually give you motivation in training or attempting to reach your dream. Think about it, if President Obama had not set out to become president, and thought that it was just too big a goal for an African American man, and set lower expectations, he would not be our president. If Taylor Swift hadn't given up everyone to move to Nashville, and thought that it was too unlikely that she would be a star, she would still be singing to songs in her living room. Judge, as you can see, it is possible to achieve your dreams, but only if you strive for perfection a and have high expectations. 2) Will help with disappointment. Judge, if you have not gotten your goal, and it was a realistic one too, you will probably feel very down and like you have failed. However, as Blackbird Press put it, "with very high or improbable goals, if you do not reach them, you have still acquired some great knowledge and skill, and since you knew from the start that perfection was impossible, you feel less like a failure and more like you have simply experimented with fate." This shows that by desiring perfection, you feel better and more accomplished in the end. Thank you for your time, and due to these reasons and many more the Opposition (Con) should win this debate.
Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

Introduction & PremisesI as Pro will be arguing in favor of the resolution. I will have the burden of proof. I will be arguing perfection should be considered undesirable. Perfection:"The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible[1]"[1]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...As the definition above clearly defines, perfection should be considered undesirable. I will present my substantive arguments in Round 2.
Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

In the final argument, here is what Pro stated: 1) Perfection is different for everybody. Very well, we can say that is true. Now, let's assume that we have all reached perfection - that is a good thing, isn't it? So we should all desire for perfection, showing that whether or not it is reachable it still best to desire perfection, showing that this point actually supports Con in this debate. 2) "I decide when I have reached perfection." Okay, fine. But when you have reached perfection, That is a good thing, so whether or not you can reach it, it is good to desire perfection so that you CAN reach it..if that is what you believe. 3) "I achieved perfection may times in my life. There are many religious followers who believe that their religion is perfect." So when you achieved perfection, or these religious followers did, they probably enjoyed it, or were satisfied, which is a good thing. This shows that if you DO believe that it. Is possible to reach perfection, then you DO desire or attempt to strive for perfection , and my point remains valid. http://www.post-gazette.com... 4) I cannot tell people they need to improve. Okay, so I can't. But as I have stated time and time again, if you don't need to improve, then you have desired and achieved perfection, and the Con side should win this debate. 5) "Con doesn't have data." Neither of us do. This is a philosophical debate, these are all assumptions. However, my assumptions are backed up by three reliable sources, where as the Pro has one. And I have 2 standing points, and the Pro has 0. Thank you, Pro, for very interesting and intriguing debate. And for all those voting, I strongly urge a Con vote on this debate.
Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

My opponent ignored my important point. "Perfection is relative to the eye's of the beholder. Perfection in itself suggests something is "faultless. " If one sees something has no faults then there is no need to improve"My opponent can not define perfection. Nor can my opponent point to authorities on what is perfection is and is not. Perfection is applied relative to each person. What my opponent considers perfection may not be perfection to me. My opponent is inherently stating that she is an authority on perfection. But perfection is inherently subjective. Therefore, it is impossible for my opponent to decide what is perfection what is not. It is impossible for my opponent to make the claim whether someone has achieved perfection or not. "My opponent was stating that I hadn't said what would happen if you were to reach perfection, however, perfection can ever be reached, therefore leaving it something to STRIVE for rather than actually achieve. "I decide myself when I reach perfection, not Con. When I have reached perfection,I have no faults. My opponent has no authority on what perfection is to other people. This is Con attempting to claim her view of perfection is universal. I will state for myself, I soundly reject it. I think perfection is achieved whenever I state it has been reached. "how many times have you EVER in your life reached "perfection" and believed that you could not have done anything differently? "I have achieved perfection many times in my life. There are many many religious followers who believe their religion is perfect[1]. There are many people who see themselves as perfect. Who is my opponent to deny their beliefs and state they are not perfect? [1]. http://www.post-gazette.com... "There is always a way and a reason to improve, showing that this points is beyond a doubt improbable, invalid, and does not support this debate. "On what authority does Pro have to tell someone else they have a reason to improve? "Aim high [2], towards perfection, and consider it DESIRABLE, but not achievable. "Again, my opponent if offering more assumptions. Who says that I am "striving perfection? " I never stated that. Who said majority of people are striving for perfection? There is no evidence of that. On what merit, does Pro have to state what is desirable for all people? "I can see no "data" on the Pro's side of this debate. .. And for sources? ?? "Where did I make assertions claiming what perfection is? Con has made these claims and has no authority to make such a claim. Con's sources don't offer any evidence either. I challenge anyone to read it to figure that out. Con's premises are extremely subjective and has as much validity as anyone discussing perfection. It was only conjecture, therefore it is as true as the dream I had last night, it is only true for me not anyone else.
Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

Judge, things can always be improved upon, and therefore perfection can never be reached. My opponent was stating that I hadn't said what would happen if you were to reach perfection, however, perfection can ever be reached, therefore leaving it something to STRIVE for rather than actually achieve. REBUTTALS 1) Perfection=Stagnation Judge, stagnation is a failure to develop, process, or advance, [1]. The Proposition is trying to delude you into thinking that perfection is commonly reached and prohibits you from advancing. Judge, how many times have you EVER in your life reached "perfection" and believed that you could not have done anything differently? There is always a way and a reason to improve, showing that this points is beyond a doubt improbable, invalid, and does not support this debate. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... STRENGTHENING 1) High Expectations. In this point I was attempting to state that you always want to aim high [2], towards perfection, and consider it DESIRABLE, but not achievable. Desirable means wanted, and you should want perfection, but know that you cannot get it [3]. My opponent's refute to this point was that creating goals is not the same as striving for perfection, but let me say, whenever I said 'high expectations' I was referring to perfection, if I made that unclear. [2] http://www.forbes.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...; 2) Helps with disappointment. Judge, my opponents refute to that was simply that I had no relevant data which relates to sources. First of all, both of these situations are merely hypothetical, and I can see no "data" on the Pro's side of this debate either. And for sources??? I used Mew York Times, Forbes, (both of which are VERY reliable and highly acclaimed sources) Blackbird Press [4], and the Dictionary. How are these not reliable? Maybe I stated no "data" from them, but I do have reliable proof backing me up. [4] http://blackbirdpress.org... And let's talk about the Pro's sources, shall we? Their first two sources are merely DEFINITIONS of the big phrases they used, 'authoritative' and 'false dilemma', showing that he was simply putting down these sources to HAVE sources, even though they in no way help to support his side. And finally, if you click on the Pro's third source, it takes you to a link on Korean Internet! This is in no way whatsoever related to our topic, showing that his source and relating points are invalid. CONCLUSION Thank you for your time, and due to the fact that his sources are completely irrelevant and his one point is invalid, the Pro side of this debate has no points standing. However, I have used reliable, relevant sources and have two points still standing, showing that the Con side should win this debate. Thank you for your patience.
Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

Rebuttals:" I would like to define this motion."It is not a motion." I would like this debate to be judged upon whichever side can best prove that we should or should not strive for perfection."Is that what the resolution stated? The resolution states, "Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable." Not "whichever side can best prove that we should or should not strive for perfection." I am not going to allow Con to change the burden of proof to suit Con's benefits. "We can never reach it in the end, isn't it important to aim high.....According to the New York Times...when a person sets a goal for their self to achieve, they end up below their expectations...if we set a low or average expectation for ourselves, we can expect to end up below average, or having not achieved our goal. I agree that perfection IS impossible...we set an unachievable goal, we may end up not getting it, but we will at least have a better result than if we did not strive for perfection."Creating goals is irrelevant to striving for perfection. Goals themselves, don't equal perfection because one can still have many faults. High expectations don't equal perfection either. My opponent has created a false dilemma here because goals and high expectations are not synonymous with striving for perfection[1]. It is misinformation on the part of the New York Times. It was not based on any scientific data but conjecture. My opponent's use of this source is an appeal to authority[2]. Who said perfection was impossible? Not I so I am not sure who Con is agreeing with.[1]http://www.nizkor.org...[2]http://www.nizkor.org..."2) Will help with disappointment."My opponent only offered conjecture that was unsubstantiated by any quantitative or qualitative evidence.ARGUMENTS:#1. Perfection=StagnationCon's arguments related little to perfection itself. Allow me to retort. I think perfection can be achieved unlike Con. Why? Perfection is relative to the eye's of the beholder. Perfection in itself suggests something is "faultless." If one sees something has no faults then there is no need to improve. Therefore, an extremely obese man may maintain his obesity because he sees no fault in what he has become. A nervous student may maintain his nervousness because he sees no fault in what he does. If perfection is seen already, there is no need for change.My opponent does not discuss the dilemma at all of what happens when perfection is reached. I explained it before in the scenarios I listed above. Scientific progression or Research & Development is inherently based on imperfection[3]. For things to be perfect suggests there is no need to change anything. Therefore, perfection is inherently stagnation because there are no faults and there is nothing needing to change.[3]http://www.rdmag.com...
I am more "socialist" then you

You truly have a great point and I respect your opinion as this puts me in a real tight corner to take on these detailed ideas. I myself see socialism as a very broadened term and I can only identify myself as a mix between a democratic socialist and an anarchist with, of course, a little of our founding fathers ideals . As I truthfully agree with you on all these issues that I would be willing to support 100% you forgot to include one of the biggest influence corporations use is religion. It is an corrupted idea which they can sell by getting most people to agree on certain subjects that reflect corporate interests. For example, when the Pope visited this year and addressed congress (somewhat of a violation of the separation of church and state) he "preached" of some socialist qualities that we could agree with. But the one thing he mentioned that immediately turned capitalist was the idea of a "one world community" which would mean corporate interest would have global imperial control of all people through world leaders as they've done with congress. Now I'm not here to debate the pope, but religious influence corrupted many men and by how the most evil of men used their influence to brainwash people (for example, Hitler, look it up). I'm not saying that religion should be abolished, but if you are unwilling to talk about a definite and uninfringed separation of church and state to battle the capitalist dogs then that would make me more of a "socialist" then you. In the next debate I'm wondering what your stance and definition on the issue of the separation of church and state is. Also, if you believe in Karl Marx's idea of a proletariat revolution how would and could this work in our country and how could we influence other countries to follow suit without military intervention to free the oppressed as you and i would say. Other then that you put up a very strong socialistic ideals and really made me think because it was impossible not for me to support any of them.
A mixed economy is better than a command/planned economy

There is not one example of a pure command economy working, There is no example of a pure market system working either, All systems are mixed systems, All of themthat said, Planned economies do work china now is still a planned state directed economy, The state stil owns directs and commends the commanding heights of industry big state run firms still domonated their excellent economy and they still have five year plans, Singapore used as an example of a perfect market economy also has a huge state owned sector most of the land and much of the housing is own and run by the state in SINGAPORE! Norway has a very big state run sector and works fine, France for 30 years 30 glorious years has an economy more state run that the prsent chinese economy that grew 5% a year, A real amazing success it is not proper to deal with absolutesall economies are mixed so you set yourself up to win by defaultcapitalism and socailism don't exist all systems are mixtures of both al economies are mixed so a agree with you and disagree at the same timemy point is at time state directed econoies in japan france italy singapore and chia have done very well, Market socialism state capitalism call it what you will are mixed economies because all economies are mixedthere are no absolutes none that said there are examples of state dircted economies doing very very well better in fact than those with much less state influence
A mixed economy is better than a command/planned economy

SOURCE BUSINESS STANDARD OCT 17 2017According to the World Bank, More than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6. 5 percent in 2012, As measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1. 90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.
A mixed economy is better than a command/planned economy

China has a planned economy and has the wordls fastest growing economyIn what way does this make it better than a mixed economy? Would like an explanation. In 1980 90% of the population lived in abject poverty, Today it is less than 2% and this progress was made with reforms but again most of the economy remians in the hands of the state either outright or through controlsYou have provided no source and expect me to find it. I couldn't find the stats about so I am going to make it about salary. The average salary in the United States is $44, 564 and the average salary in China is 74, 318 Yuan. Both stats from 2017. When we convert 74, 000 Yuan to the dollar it is $10, 982. 90. This means a person will earn roughly four times more in the US compared to China. You have provided numbers without sources. Would like them.
A mixed economy is better than a command/planned economy

ArgumentWhen the market fails it in a mixed economy the government can use its power to stop a recession or at the very to do not make it as bad. Even on the other side. When the market succeeds to much the government can step in to add taxation in order to reduce monopoly. Inequality will be less of a problem because the mixed economy I am for is the one which provides healthcare for all while also education. This will be gathered from enforcing current laws and increasing taxation until the gap between the rich and the power is nullified and there is a middle class instead of two extremes. When people say capitalism has made the poor richer. I will say it has also made the rich richer. The problem is that the rich are gaining much more capital than the poor which does increase the differences between the two groups. When someone also says that I say but they are still poor. I much rather have the poor thriving instead of staying poor which mostly unregulated capitalism has done. With taxing the rich and enforcing we are able to provide better education for the poor which would be equity. GDP is also a tired line given by conservatives. The problem is that I much rather have a population survive a famine rather then have a GDP. Population survival comes before people thriving. In a mixed economy it allows people to make businesses but will be regulated by the state. This will reduce discrimination and improve welfare programs if done correctly. Sure you won't be making as much as almost unregulated capitalism but the employees will have a safety net while also be treated fairly. all economies are mixed so you set yourself up to win by defaultNot really because your argument for socialism can beat mine. so a agree with you and disagree at the same time You would have to disagree because half or whatever my position maybe is not full socialism which is why it is different. because all economies are mixed there are no absolutes none I used planned economy so that opposition can use China as an example which I am you are capable of doing.
You just trumped.

Rebuttals#1My Claim: Whoever denied it supplied it.Con's Claim: This claim was not aimed at any person or persons. If Pro wants to win, he'd better be a lot more specific.To clarify, Con was denying the fact that he was the efficient cause of intestinal gas.#2Con's Claim: Whoever smelled it dealt it.**NOTE: It, reffering to the releasing of gas, is aimed precisely at Con, who seems to have a very smelly room at the moment.Con has made two baseless assertions. The first one being that I smelt the trump, the second being that I have a very smelly room.ArgumentsWhoever did the rhyme (1) did the crime (2). [1]Conclusion- Con has left my arguments unrefuted, and thus has failed to meet his burden of proof, whilst I have produced some very conclusive arguments that remain unscathed.- Con has trumped. My arguments show this.Notes (1) The word 'rhyme' refers to Con's statement that reads 'Whoever smelled it dealt it'.(2) The word 'crime' refers to the causation of the release of the intestinal gas.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100%

I have to agree that 100% tax rate is better than both of the two evils. I believe the government and all levels of wealth wouldn't function properly if an income tax rate was closer to 0%. As said in my first part, redistribution of wealth is still heavily reliant on income tax. As opposed to a 100% tax rate, I believe all money throughout all levels of wealth would lead to a limited wealthy class and the majority to be stuck in poverty with a 0% tax rate. When it comes to a 100% tax rate, there is still an equal opportunity. Even though giving all income to the government, at least all levels of wealth would have their share. I understand that each worker in society has a different contribution of effort and perseverance but a funded environment would outweigh it all. It's better than having different levels outweigh. Even though different amounts of effort may vary in the workplace, government workers wouldn't be in debt. In this case, their workplace wouldn't be funded. An example of a situation that would work better with a 100% tax rate: If parts of the world were to go in a "war economy", it is understood that it is better for an accurate contribution. During times of war and economic drops were the closest tax was to a 100%. Examples like the Civil War was funded by income tax. When the thought of income tax came to be, it showed how difficult and heavy financial burdens would be. I understand that the people wouldn't have control over what they want specifically to pursue happiness but what is needed would most likely outweigh want. I value the quality over the freedom of choice. Room for opportunity wouldn't be relied upon by people who want different things. The government would know what's best. As I said, anything would be filled in. An extra contribution wouldn't. Their pursuit of happiness happens to vary on both sides of the argument. I apologize for the inconvenience regarding my previous debate. Thank you
The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100%

I'm potentially going to waste an entire use of a debate round here, but I'd just like you to actually argue a case for 100% tax as opposed to disagree with my case for 0%. I agree with a lot that you've said - as I say, I'm arguing the hypothetical that 0% is the lesser of two evils and if you had to choose between only those two extremes, I would say 0% is the better choice. I'm not necessarily suggesting society should implement a 0% income tax, but I'm arguing that if it logically fits that 0% is better than 100%, then the tax rate should be closer to 0% and not closer to 100%. If you feel it should be closer to 100%, and you feel I'm wrong, can you make a case for why 100% income tax is a better option than 0%, or why it's the lesser of the two evils?