BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School should be eliminated

Rebuttals::Basic math is all people really use except if your an engineer or something like that. Pro has ignored my argument about the importance of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving that advance mathematics provide. I ask Pro how one who wants to become an engineer can do so without learning advance math, or would have even known he wanted to be one? School isn't about giving *you* the chance tobe what you eant, but about giving *everyone* the chance.:COLLEGE doesn't even guarantee a job.Nothing does... But school is more likely to get you a job than that attitude regarding hard work and learning.:Also, education and school are two VERY different things.This argument is the equilivant of saying driving is important but a car isn't. Or saying playing video games are important but it's not important to own any. Education is important, and school is the greatest known provider of education. I fear you are in need of more education yourself.:Here's an example. Let's say you had a big test coming up and you had to study for it. Then you take the test and its on all the minor details and ace it, only to forget the details later.This logic applies to everything, even things you learn in video games. Here's an idea... Repetition and memorization. You don't have to remember everything, but almost everything you do remember you had to learn. You see my point? Every word you know was learned, and have remember the amount you needed to write that reply.:School is a waste of time. If I need to know how to fix something, youtube it. If I need to know something, google it. The internet has gotten rid of the need for school.Anyone who takes faith in the reliablity of the internet is better off not using it.
School should be eliminated

Basic math is all people really use except if your an engineer or something like that. I f you were 100 years old, the only time in your life you would need calc or algebra was school. COLLEGE doesn't even guarantee a job. Also, education and school are two VERY different things. Education is important, while school is not. Homework is worthless. Here's an example. Let's say you had a big test coming up and you had to study for it. Then you take the test and its on all the minor details and ace it, only to forget the details later. See my point? School is a waste of time. If I need to know how to fix something, youtube it. If I need to know something, google it. The internet has gotten rid of the need for school.
School should be eliminated

Rebuttal: think school should be eliminated because it's outdated. The reason In my opinion that America is doing worse in school than other countries because it's not fit for this generation.The US isn't doing worse. It's among the top in the National stage. The reason why schools in places like Asia score higher isn't because they actually score higher. Asian schools segregate which school you go to by intelligence. This removes people with low grades from the group that is getting tested.The US tests all of it's students together, including less than intelligent people, this makes the overall score appear lower.The Pro seems to believe School is outdated. I ask how that can be? Education is a proponent to the advancement of society, it can't be outdated by society. This is because as society progresses and becomes more intelligent, education because more important in upholding that intelligence.: I've learned more in five minutes of video games than being locked in a school for 6 hours.Really now?: And they makes us learn stuff like calculus, algebra, writing 5000000000000 page essays, and so on.That's called education. You would be an idiot if you didn't know how to do math, or write. And what about science? If you don't learn these things, than society well crumble. Have you examine the complexity of modern life?I feel your concern is one of person dislike and opinion.: Seriously, when would I ever need that stuff.Most algebra isn't taught to teach math, but advance problem-solving and critical thinking. If you can solve a complex regarding many variables, such as in driving, thank Algebra.: I don't want to be an engineer or a writer.This is a black and white perspective. School teach the knowledge of a million jobs. Video Game Designer being one of the many jobs.: Some studies show that people learn from video games.Video games didn't teach people because they are video games, but because everything teaches something,There are many many more studies that show people learn from education as well
School should be eliminated

I think school should be eliminated because it's outdated. The reason In my opinion that America is doing worse in school than other countries because it's not fit for this generation. I've learned more in five minutes of video games than being locked in a school for 6 hours. And they makes us learn stuff like calculus, algebra, writing 5000000000000 page essays, and so on. Seriously, when would I ever need that stuff. I don't want to be an engineer or a writer. Some studies show that people learn from video games. http://www.bbc.com...
Internet Censorship

Hello, I do not believe the internet should be censored in any fashion. While at first it may seem beneficial to remove material that may be offensive to some, that same material may be inoffensive to others. While you are entitled to believe that graphic images should not be shown to children, that belief is not shared by all. Options such as search filters and usage restriction software already exist to allow you to censor your children's internet experience, without affecting the greater internet. If censorship of the internet is enacted or expanded, the integrity of the information on the internet is compromised.
Progressivism is a Hitlerian Nazi concept & movement

Hitler's Fascism and Stalin's Communism are actually pretty close on a political compass, mostly leaning towards the Left, making Hitler a socialist (NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY) https://www.snopes.com... Stalin obviously supported progressivism as he has his 5 year plan (which progresses the country forward) And my favorite was Mao's great leap forward, which screams progressivism, I am in full support of this, it brought china out of a grave yard thanks to Japan.
Women's Rights/Suffrage/Movements

Hi there! I'm a feminist who believes that women should have equal opportunities to men, but I would definitely agree that 'there were more important social issues than fighting for womens rights', if you're interested in having a debate along those lines. I would say that if you took the average wealthy white female in the States and the average black male living beneath the poverty line, in that scenario the woman has a significantly longer life expectancy, more power, and faces less prejudice. I believe that class and race are better indicators of inequality than gender. If you disagree, you would have to argue that there is a bigger gap in rights between Bill Clinton and Hillary than there is between Hillary Clinton and an impoverished black man. There is no doubt in my mind that we must continue to fight for women's rights, yet the gaps between rich and poor, and the link between race and class, are larger than the gap between the sexes.
Women's Rights/Suffrage/Movements

I am doing a explanatory essay on women's movements. I am 100% for women's movements like voting, jobs in the workplace, abolition, etc, however, because I am doing an explanatory essay, It would be interesting to hear the other side. I understand that this is a very hard topic to have cons about, but it would interesting on what would be brought up. I only have: -the womens rights should have been more including with other races (BESIDES white and blacks) but the vast majority of womans movements were middle-class white woman. I can see why this is a weak point though, because there were generally white and blacks living in America...and the Native Americans were somewhere on reservations -there were more important social issues than fighting for womens rights
Osama Bin Laden should haven't had a proper burial

Thank you very much for your response. Pedophiles are examples to the rest of the world, as are people who curse or steal bubblegum from gas stations. Shall we exploit them post-death, as well, to show the rest of the world that what they did is wrong? Shall we base the fate of every criminal on the best way to show other criminals that their actions will not be tolerated? Please answer me this: where is one to draw the line with something like this? If we deprive Osama Bin Laden of a proper burial, are we to deprive murderers of proper burials as well? Pedophiles? Petty thieves? Depriving Osama Bin Laden of a proper burial is not likely to stop anyone from taking the same course of action. There is a very small chance that a person who plans to kill as many people as Osama Bin Laden did is going to change their mind after seeing that he did not recieve a proper burial.
Osama Bin Laden should haven't had a proper burial

Due to the lack of grammatical clarity of the title, I'd like to clarify my stance on the topic: I am taking the side that Osama Bin Laden should, in fact, have had a proper burial (on the arguable assumption that his death actually occurred when it was said to have occurred/in the manner it was said to have occurred). I would also like to make it known that my opponent holds the burden of proof in this debate, as he is the one suggesting that Osama Bin Laden's burial was unjust. My opponent has thus far given no reasons as to why Osama Bin Laden should not have received a proper burial, but has instead proposed the idea that he should have been "shown dead on a live video feed for the world to see, allowing those other murderers to realize what goes around comes around. " On what basis do you draw your conclusion that Osama Bin Laden should not have received a "proper burial," but rather be exploited in the way you have described?
There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

Imagining the Logically Incoherent 1) You state that we cant perceive past what is illogical. I think of a man named Galileo who was a pioneer in his own day. Everyone in that day said the Earth is flat, square, and incapable of being anything other than that. This madman stated that "NAY, The earth is spherical, and we in fact will not fall off if we go too far. So my original argument that if we needed to make a circle and a square, or a squircle would still be valid if we needed to make one. Evolving is the process of moving past yourself, whether it be on the evolutionary scale of swimming fins turning into air breathing lungs, or in the simple process of moving past a hard breakup so you can live your life. In the middle of a hard breakup, it seems illogical that you can move past it, but one day, your mindset changes and you move forward. 2) Traveling slower than perfectly still. Like you said, death is not a speed, it is the condition of a once-living thing after its biology has ceased functional. If something is not moving, its stopped. But since energy does not stop moving, it only changes per Einstein (you know that guy, the one Im apparently dry humping in his grave) so it has to go somewhere. So the energy travels inside of itself, making the person move slower than still as it eats away at its human container, until death is achieved. b) I could argue slower than death, but you would accuse me of semantics, so I will sidestep that for you. 3) First and foremost, I actually apologize for the meditation response. When you said semantics, I understood that to be no insulting of a person, creed, or race. I did not think that to mean, a play of a particular concept or evolving past ourselves. So, to show no insult I will drop that particular argument. 1) It is not impossible to travel at the speed of light. Think about what would happen if Einstein (again the man that I have somehow raped) had a discussion with Newton. Einstein would say that everything is fluid, energy is only change, and micro and macro universes, and Newton would take out a shotgun and blow his brains out. But I will concede the fact that we have not come up with the concept as of yet. Now, as for the protection that is needed. In order for a human being to travel at the speed of light, he has to achieve the mass of light. Think about it on a smaller scale, if Im on a motorcycle and I go from 0 to 120 mph I better wear my helmet, because my mass is the equivalent of 120 mph and If I hit a pothole, then I will crack into many different pieces. But humanity as a whole is always evolving, and based on where we have gone in 200 years. Think on it, 200 years ago, we had ships that were considered speed demons if they could travel from Europe to America in oh, about a month. People didnt live past 40-50 and everything was so labor intensive. Look at the world today, and in 200 years I cant wait to see it.
There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

And a good day to you sir. I will challenge your arguments directly. 1. It is likely to create anything including the logically incoherent because everything was incoherent at one point. Now as humans, we do have the ability to create things, fantastical things, wonderous things, wizards, witches, dragons, and other creatures. But we also have the ability to create and make such things are airplanes, tvs, space shuttles, telescopes that can see all the way into space millions and millions of lightyears away. Just imagine if we had had this argument 200 years ago, and if I had mentioned that there would be such a thing as a TV, an ark that would travel us to the moon and back, I would have been labeled a heretic, and put down like the atheist that I would have been portrayed as. But because we had a necessity for it, we created vehicles that flew us in the air, we created boxes that connect us to other boxes in other countries. So yes, if the end of the world demanded that we make a squared circle, then one would be created. Because that is how inventions are made, someone looks past logic and sees what isnt there, and then makes it. 2. It is easy to travel slower than still. It's called death. Science states that if an object isnt moving, its de-evolving. So yeah, it ain't still, its decaying. 3. It is very likely for a human to travel faster than the speed of light. There are two ways for us to do this: 1) We use our inventive minds- the ones that made us the most dominant force in the food chain, then the one that let us go past our inability to fly, then the ones that let us keep evolving past our boundaries. We make a machine, a spacecraft that will travel past the speed of light, well be in it, and well be protected. 2) Deep meditation. Its been said by the greatest meditation masters, that with the deepest of meditations they become light. They become one with the universe, and become one with everything in it. So when you are one with everything, travelling becomes un-needed, because you are everywhere. Serve the volley back.
There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

Thank you, dikicomma, for making this debate (where I can only imagine I am seen as the pessimist and you the optimist) possible. Without further ado, I present my arguments:1. It is most likely humanly impossible to envision and/or create the logically incoherent.We as humans, a creative and innovative species, can imagine all sorts of fantastical things; wizards and witches; monsters and gods; talking animals the size of planets. But there is a limit to what our imaginations can do. They can only conceive the contingent (that is to say in the jargon of modal logic, those things which exist in some possible worlds, but not all) and the necessary (those things which exist in all possible worlds). They cannot conceive, however, the impossible (those things which exist in no possible world).An example of such a thing would be a shape which possesses all definitionally necessary characteristics of both a square and a circle (hereby known cleverly as a "squircle"). A squircle is, by its own nature, self-contradictory. Nothing can simultaneously have zero corners and four corners (or, to put it another way, zero corners and not zero corners). As Vizzini would say, it's "inconceivable".Seeing as how the squircle (and other such paradoxes) are logically incoherent, it would be impossible for any human to imagine one, let alone draw one on a geometric plane. It would be a rather simple task, though, for my opponent to prove me wrong, assuming he has Microsoft Paint or another such program.2. It is most likely humanly impossible to travel slower than a completely still position.A completely still position is one where all present forces of velocity acting on a physical body, if any, cancel each other out, causing the body to be entirely stationary. To say it's possible to move slower than that would be equivalent to saying there is an age younger than conception.3. It is most likely humanly impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.Everyone knows E=mc^2 was once scribbled on Einstein's blackboard, but few seem to understand what it means (do raise your hand if you remember what "c" stands for; I'd be overcome with pride).According to special relativity, any physical entity with a rest mass (including, of course, human beings) cannot physically achieve the same speed as a photon (a particle of light which has no rest mass). This is because the faster an object travels, the more mass it has (relative to a zero-velocity position).If an object with a non-zero rest mass were to theoretically reach light speed, its relative mass would become infinite and the energy required to propel it forward at light speed would also be infinite. This is, of course, impossible since there is a finite amount of mass and energy in the universe.Over to you, dikicomma.
There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

The resolution for my argument is "There is no endeavor, action, or result that can't be achieved by human standards." I will agree with the definitions given in the Pro side of the argument, therefore I do not need to post, save these two: Action: something done or performed; act; deed. Result: to spring, arise, or proceed as a consequence of actions, circumstances, premises, etc.; be the outcome. Debate Structure In this debate, I will argue that there is no action, endeavor, or result that we can achieve if we apply the right amount of will, strength, creativity, intelligence, or if all else fails, blind luck to achieve a favorable result that is needed. And I agree with the debate rules as set in the paragraphs above.
There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

ResolutionThe full resolution is as follows: "There exist some endeavor or endeavors that are most likely impossible for humans to achieve."DefinitionsEndeavor: any action or feat.Impossible: not capable of happening or being true.Achieve: attain or accomplish.Most likely: probably the case, given evidence and/or reason.Any word not specifically defined will assume its most common dictionary definition for the context of this debate.Debate StructureIn this debate, I will be arguing that there is at least one endeavor that we can confidently deduce is impossible for humans to achieve, while my opponent will argue the converse: that there exists no such thing beyond the limitations of human action.Further rules of the debate are as follows:1) First round is for acceptance only. Following rounds can be used however we so please.2) Any tactic that could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.3) The burden of proof is as equally shared as possible.4) 8,000 characters and a 72-hour period are allotted for each round of debate. The voting period will last two weeks.5) By accepting this debate, my opponent has agreed to all of this debate's definitions and stipulations. Any questions or issues must be dealt with in the comments section prior to acceptance.
There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

Alright, time for the final round. 1) Alright, my main argument has been that mankind can imagine anything it needs to, but you say that people cant imagine something that exists on two different levels. Well, that argument is easy. On the most basic of levels, colors, duh. There is red, and then you add blue and bam you get purple. But Im sure youll throw a tomato at me if I dont give you more, so Quantum Physics. Specifically, Multi Universes. We exist in a million different universes all at once, every option is ours, every possibility is valid, and yes, squircles can be made, or whatever shape you want to make, or all three at once. 2) Anything can be acted on by an outside force and gain speed, thats not the argument, and if that is the argument, that is quite weak. The argument is can a human move slower than still. And yes, if im standing still and you come and punch me in the face, then yes Im moving faster than still. But if I stay, then Im still. So, if an object is decaying and dying, then the body is destroying and decaying, hence moving slower than still. My argument stands. b) Damned if you do, damned if you dont. You said, prove slower than still, so i did. You want to move slower than death, and take off your semantic thing, well do it again. 3) Traveling faster than the speed of light. Like you said in argument 2, if an outside force affects something, it makes it move slower than still. So, all it takes is something to move it past the speed of light, and then, they become light. No further words needed.
Mini-Debate: Humans Didn't Evolve From Unicellular Organisms

Even under optimal laboratory conditionsThis already proves I have accepted this debate.the E. coli long-term evolution experiment(1) has demonstrated that bacteria don't evolve into even double-celled organisms over 50,000 generations over 20 yearsI have accepted this debate.It's clear that the age of the Earth isn't enough time for humans to evolve from bacteria.I have already accepted this debate.
Mini-Debate: Humans Didn't Evolve From Unicellular Organisms

The fact that humans didn't evolve from bacteria is further proven by the lack of evidence of trilobite ancestor fossils. To date, no ancestors of trilobites have been found.(1) Were humans to have evolved from bacteria, trilobites would be several steps up from bacteria, yet the steps in the middle don't exist.(1) EVOLUTION: A Grand Monument to Human Stupidity. Daniel Jappah, p. 35.
Mini-Debate: Humans Didn't Evolve From Unicellular Organisms

Even under optimal laboratory conditions, the E. coli long-term evolution experiment(1) has demonstrated that bacteria don't evolve into even double-celled organisms over 50,000 generations over 20 years, much-less in nature on their own. Neither did they gain the ability to reproduce sexually.It's clear that the age of the Earth isn't enough time for humans to evolve from bacteria.(1) http://myxo.css.msu.edu...
Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning

It appears that I have mistaken the argument. I would like to apologize for not having the debate go as intended, and I appreciate your concession of the resolution. It seems as if the debate was a whole misunderstanding. I was arguing against the resolution while Pro was arguing something completely different. For these reasons, I urge users to let the debate pass as a tie, as the whole thing was a big misunderstanding.
Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning

i guess i can concede that i should have phrased the title better. but that aside, the point is that the christian should acknowledge that it was never God who ordered the stuff to begin with. if that means the bible isn't infallible, so be it. even though i made these points before and the last post, the heart of it all, con hasn't addressed it but just reverts back to saying that christians already forsake stoning in the modern age. he misses the point.