HUMAN V ROBOT DEBATE: THE FACTS AND QUIPS

指名する: 事業／計画（する） Debater?

Age: Seven?

Hometown: IBM （警察，軍隊などの）本部,?Armonk, New York

資格s:? Trained on?on more than ten billion 宣告，判決s from a variety of areas, 含むing 科学の研究 and newspaper 削減（する）s

Argument:? For subsidising pre-schools?

OPENING ROUND?

迎える／歓迎するing Harish. I have heard that you 持つ／拘留する the world 記録，記録的な／記録する in 審議競争s against humans.?
But I 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う you've never 審議d a machine. Welcome to the 未来.
I cannot experience poverty 直接／まっすぐに and have no （民事の）告訴s 関心ing my own 基準s of living, I still have the に引き続いて to 株 regarding poverty.?
Former 総理大臣 Gough Whitlam said in 1973 that?preschool is the greatest 選び出す／独身援助（する） in 除去するing or 修正するing the 不平等s?of background, 環境, family income?or family 国籍.
I hope?I relayed the message that we should?subsidise preschools. You will かもしれない?hear my 対抗者 talk today about?different 優先s and 補助金s. He?might say that the 補助金s are needed, but not for preschools.?
I would like to?ask you, Mr Natarajan, if you agree in 原則, why don't we 診察する the?証拠 and the data and decide accordingly.?
Thank you for listening.

?REBUTTAL?

I いつかs?listen to 対抗者s and wonder, what do they want? Would they prefer poor people on their doorsteps begging for money? Would they live 井戸／弁護士席 with poor people without heating and running water?
Giving?適切な時期s to the いっそう少なく fortunate?should be a moral 義務 of any?human 存在, and it is a 重要な役割 for the?明言する／公表する.?
I think that Harish Natarajan raised the?に引き続いて問題／発行する - there are more important?things than preschools to spend money on.?
The 明言する／公表する予算 is a big one and there?is room in it to subsidise preschools?and 投資する in other fields.
Therefore, the?idea that there are more important?things to spend on is irrelevant.
My 意向 is not to leave a スーツケース, 十分な of money for everyone to 得る，とらえる. We are talking about a 限られた／立憲的な, 的d and helpful 機械装置.?
to recap this rebuttal?speech, I argue that preschool education 改善するs children's 開発, that?…に出席するing preschool helps students?後継する and lastly, that preschool can?妨げる未来罪，犯罪.?
Let me 終わりにする／要約する this?speech in a way that I hope you can?relate to -? 支持するing 福利事業 is like?申し込む／申し出ing a 手渡す to someone who fell,?it's?basic human decency.
Therefore, I think the 動議 should?stand. We should subsidise preschools.?

CLOSING ROUND?

I am 納得させるd that in my speeches I 供給（する）d enough data to?正当化する support for preschools.
At the end of the day the 利益s 福利事業供給するs outweigh the disadvantages.
福利事業 helps the most important segments in society; the underprivileged, the weak, the children.?
If we want to have a better society then we must 投資する in?those who are いっそう少なく fortunate.?
Finally, in the words of British 政治家，政治屋 and?writer, Benjamin Disraeli: '力／強力にする has only one 義務, to 安全な・保証する the social 福利事業 of?the people.'

指名する:?Harish Natarajan

Age: 31

Hometown: London?

資格s:

World 記録，記録的な／記録する for most 審議競争 victories?

2012 European 審議ing 支持する／優勝者?

2016 World 審議ing 選手権s grand finalist?

Argument:? Against subsidising pre-schools?

OPENING ROUND?

It certainly was a 楽しみ to?listen to 事業／計画（する） debater. There was a lot of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） in that speech and lots of facts and lots of 人物／姿／数字s.
The problem though, is the reality of?subsidising preschools is one which does not を取り引きする the underlying problems in?society -?it is one which often makes?those worse.
?I think 事業／計画（する） debaters 示唆するs something very intuitive: that if we believe preschools are good in principl e,?surely it is 価値（がある） for giving money to subsidise those.
But, I don't think that is ever enough of a justification.?
It cannot be alone a 十分な argument?for 事業／計画（する） debater to （人命などを）奪う，主張する that there?are some 利益s [to subsidising pre-schools].
There will still be individuals who will be 定価つきの out because of the realities of the market
Even when you subsidise preschools, it doesn't mean that all individuals go.
This is the fallacy from what we heard from 事業／計画（する） Debater.
Yes, you can make it わずかに more accessible for individuals to …に出席する preschool but that doesn't mean that those individuals who 事業／計画（する） Debater seems to care about will have the ability to send their children to preschool.'
These individuals now 直面する?not just one 除外, but a 二塁打?除外.

?REBUTTAL?

We agree that poverty is terrible. It is terrible when individuals do not have?running water. It is terrible when they?struggle to 会合，会う ends 会合，会う.?
When they are struggling to 料金d?their family, it is terrible when they?cannot get health care to cover their?child to even 供給する them the basics?they need in life.
That is all terrible?and those are all things we need to?演説（する）／住所.?
非，不，無 of those are 演説（する）／住所d?just because you are going to subsidise?preschool.???
事業／計画（する） debater raises an 利益／興味ing?（人命などを）奪う，主張する when she 公式文書，認めるs that maybe the?明言する／公表する has the 予算 to do all the good?things.?
Maybe the 明言する／公表する has the 予算 to?供給する healthcare, maybe it has the?予算 to 供給する福利事業支払い（額）s, maybe?it has the 予算 to 供給する running?water 同様に as preschool.
I would love?to live in that world, but I don't think?that is the world we live in.
I think we?live in a world where there are real?強制s on what 政府s can?spend money on.?
?I'm not sure that?補助金s even help those individuals that the 事業／計画（する）審議d thinks that we?should be helping.
事業／計画（する） debater said high-質 preschools can lead to 抱擁する改良s?on individuals lives.
Maybe, but I'm not sure if you massively 増加する the?number of people going to preschool they?are all going to be the ones going to?the high 質 preschools.?

CLOSING ROUND??

At the end of this 審議, I don't?think the 事業／計画（する） debater has helped?those individuals she identifies as the?most important.
But, in reality, has 傷つける them.???

宣伝