BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That grades should be abolished

That is very true. As we both said before, all kids are different. Which means they receive or expect different rewards. It is very true that some kids like having their family or just parents appreciate and acknowledge that their child is doing well and compliment them. Some families take their child to the movies if the child is doing well. I believe that we both agree with this: it all depends on the family. You were talking about yourself and what you like when you do good a test. Other kids may be different. There should be grading systems because it tells families and students how the student is doing. After the family and student find out how the kid is doing, they will figure out what reward they will get. Whether that is a trip to the candy store or just a sweet compliment. It's not just 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or A, A-, B+, etc, schools/teachers are supposed to write a note about you. How you do in class, how well you work etc. What your teacher thinks of you. I think that kids obsess too much with grades. How well they do, what their parents will say but at the end of the day, if you worked hard, you will get good grades and you will receive whatever reward your parents give you. Believe me, I agree with you. Kids shouldn't get a trip to the movies because they do well. They should be supplied with a reward of compliments or even just a hug. I think that is the best reward anyone can receive. In conclusion, grading systems should stay in schools because it provides students with information on how well they are doing and their strengths and weaknesses. Whatever reward or punishment you get, you deserve it because at the end of the day, it's how hard you work in school. Thank you.
That grades should be abolished

I did not expect such a great reply; I am stumped. While it is true that school choice is a family problem, I also believe rewards are partially family issues, as well. The reason I sometimes don't try on my tests is because I expect a reward afterwards, and your are correct on that issue. But for me, the reward I expect isn't a number, or a letter, I expect something more like, "You did very well on your test!" from my parents. I know different kids are different; some may want candy, others, money, and others, top billings. I think that if they abolished the grading system, they should replace it with something more special. Like, maybe, somehow, have their parents or their guardian, or whoever they respect the most, have them in the room with them. That way, they could try their hardest to get all the answers on their test correct, and when the teacher hands them the report card, or results, their guardian or whatever could give them the best gratitude. If people saw how hard their children worked, I think that would make children work harder, to get the reward of gratitude. Obviously, some people applaud their kids with receiving an "A" or 100% anyways, but--and I'm not sure how I'm going to express this--I think the kids may associate it too much. They won't feel the same thing after a while; they'll just feel like their getting applauded for the letter, or number. I think they should be applauded for the effort, and that would be the best reward.
That grades should be abolished

Your points are very interesting and I partially agree with them. Although, rewards aren't exactly a bad thing. For example, the reward of doing well in high school is going to a good college. That is the reward. The think you are working towards. The reason why there are rewards in the world is because some kids are not that focused and have that good work ethic. If they get something in return, then they will work towards it like college. I'm not saying things like bribes but rewards. In this case: grades. Kids will work toward good grades which means that they will try to do well on their assignments. If a student really wants to do well they will not cheat. When you are taking the SAT, you won't be sitting next to someone. You will be by yourself. I am getting off topic but my main idea is that kids need to have a goal or in this case a reward to work towards to achieve success. It is very true that some teachers or even schools go easy on the students. But that is the family problem. If families want their child to do well or find out their strengths and weaknesses, they will find the school or even teacher(s) that will give them the most productive or hardest grades. It may be embarrassing having bad grades or you may be punished but it all comes down to what the student wants for him or herself. If the student wants to do well they will earn their prize. They may not even earn a prize but it's just the satisfying feeling that you did your best. Putting in 100% is all anyone wants to ask for. Grades just reflect on how the student is doing, how hard they are working or trying, etc. Grades are meant to help you not punish you. Thank you.
That grades should be abolished

That is indeed a good point. However. What percentage is ACTUALLY trying? Children always find ways to cheat. They wouldn't care about the education when it comes to grading, because they'll be more focused on the reward they get when they receive top billing in their class. I think that not only should grades be abolished, but that they need to mark it harder for kids to pass schools. I digress on that, as that is a completely different subject. But I think that the grading system is partially the reason why America is ranked 36 in the world on education. (http://www.cnycentral.com...) Of course, that isn't to say that other countries don't have grading systems. They just emphasize the importance of actual learning than focus on the money their government gives them for giving students "successful" grades. Honestly, the grading system is very flawed. Schools are making it easier for kids to pass, and that is unethical. The only reason they make it easier to pass school is not for the sake of the child, but for the revenue it gets from the government.
That grades should be abolished

Grading systems provide the identification of students trying. Without grades, no one will know whether the student is trying to get good grades or at least doing well at school. If the teacher says that the assignment will be graded, the kids get worried and want to get good grades. They will try more and will hopefully succeed with hard work and practice. But if the teacher says that the assignment won't be graded, then they won't try and won't put in 100% of their hard work. Everyone can achieve greatness but they have to try. This is another argument saying that there should be grading systems.
That grades should be abolished

While it is true that it may encourage students to learn more, I think that students may get bullied (but then again, people bully other people anyways. ) I must admit that I've never been in a school system, so I wouldn't quite know what it would feel like in a social environment. My father doesn't always use letters for grades, he uses numbers and percentages. While it is good to know how I did on a test, I think grading systems would have a negative effect after a while, because there will be a bad day where you fail, and some children, depending on their parents, may take it too seriously and beat themselves over it. Dependent upon the student, the grading system would have a negative effect over time. Everybody is full of pride and vanity. To get an F or a 50% grade would be crushing.
Genesis 1 is Consistent with Modern Scientific Discoveries

Yes, the first six days of the Genesis creation account end with "and there was evening and the morning, the Xth day." This indeed makes it seem reasonable to conclude that all of the days in Genesis are literal 24 hour days. However, lets take a look at the seventh day. Genesis 2 "2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." Notice here that there is no evening or morning for the seventh day. This seems quite peculiar, but when we start to look at why the words "evening and morning" are there, its starts to make sense. Given the placement of those words, they seem to be marking the end of each day. The phrase is said after the events of each day in Genesis. The words "evening and morning" therefore act as short of bookmarks or chapter endings rather than literal evening and morning. Because the phrase does not appear in the seventh day, we can conclude that they are metaphorical rather than literal (why wouldn't Genesis say evening and morning on the seventh day if it was a literal day?). This also implies that the seventh creation day is still happening (God's is resting, and that's why we haven't seen any of his creative powers at work). http://www.reasons.org... http://www.reasons.org... http://www.reasons.org... Genesis 1;1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So we can safely say that the Bible does in fact conclude that God created the universe. But perhaps you could consider the first few verses apart of creation day 1. I don't think it makes a difference either way. Genesis seems to be concerned with what is most important to humans. The beginning of the universe is definitely important to the existence of humanity, so it was pout into Genesis. We are beginning to run on a bit of a tangent here on this last paragraph. You acknowledge that we are running out of oil. What will God do then for humanity? Well, according to Biblical prophecy and the events that I have seen going on in the world, I'd say that humanity won't be around on this earth much longer, therefore we wont need more oil. Just how long is hard to say though. But that's just my opinion. It's been a good debate with you. I will give credit to where I am getting most of my information. It's from a man named Hugh Ross. I'm getting my interpretation of Genesis from his book "Navigating Genesis," which was released this year I think. Hugh Ross also has a ministry called Reasons To Believe (http://www.reasons.org...). You should look into it more. Its extremely interesting.
Genesis 1 is Consistent with Modern Scientific Discoveries

Alright. We'll use the last round for thanks. Accepting the word "yom" to mean a long period of time is inconsistent because throughout Genesis 1 it is translated as "Evening came, and morning followed." The very fact there is a "night" means it has to be a standard 24-hour day, not an undefined period of time. If "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" puts the creation of the universe before the first creation day, did God really create the universe? Or is Genesis only concerned with the earth and the creation of its existence, instead of the entire universe we see today? Is the universe we live in not significant? But now we're beginning to run out of oil. Will God lead another species to extinction just so we can continue to sustain ourselves and ruin the ecosystem with global warming? Will He always be there to supply us with something when we run out?
Genesis 1 is Consistent with Modern Scientific Discoveries

Again, I apologize for posting my argument early. I misread. I must remind the audience that Pro is here to argue that Genesis 1 is consistent with modern scientific discoveries. I am here to argue that it is not. All of my arguments will be made with this kept in mind. Let's start with rebuttals. 1) Yes, but according to current hypotheses, the Big Bang was approximately 13 billion years ago. The Earth is only 4.54 billion years old. This is inconsistent. You also say, since this implies the entire universe, it implies that the sun and moon were also created. But the problem with this is that it is also inconsistent. The Sun was created, roughly, around the same time the Earth was. Still 9 billion years off. 2) Yes, the Hebrew vocabulary is significantly smaller than English, but the literal Hebrew earth model is an ocean above the sky. Not the water cycle. They didn't know what the water cycle was. Instead, they believed there were waters above the sky that occasionally opened and fell. 3) Saying that these days can mean ages is inconsistent with you trying to prove that Genesis is consistent. We have to get our chronological order right. How can photosynthesis exist without sunlight? 4) Yes, well the entire Bible was written in past tense because everything has already happened. Your point is moot, because by the time Genesis is written the sun already (obviously) exists, and thus it has to be in the past tense. But this does not imply that the sun was created alongside the Big Bang. 5) So the dinosaurs are not significant? You have to prove the Bible is consistent with our modern understanding. Saying that these bones aren't significant means you are invalidating your own argument. And here's the crux of the argument. Even you admit that the ancient Hebrews did not have all the information about the creation of the Universe. But by having this very argument, you are trying to prove they did. 6) After providing the Hebrew word b'hema for livestock, you say that it eliminates any discrepancy? That we had tamed animals before we ourselves even existed? That's not a discrepancy? 7) So God has no prescience? He just says "hey, this species didn't turn out the way I wanted it to" and causes its extinction? Thank you for your time, and I urge you to vote against the resolution.
Genesis 1 is Consistent with Modern Scientific Discoveries

In this debate I will attempt to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is consistent with modern scientific discoveries. Of course, I will present the interpretation of Genesis that I hold to, there are many other interpretations that I reject. My opponent will attempt to show how Genesis is not consistent with modern discoveries and will rebut my interpretation. First round is for acceptance. Second for presentations of our points. Third and fourth are for rebuttals and clarification. Good luck :)
Marijuana should be legalized in Canada

This debate is about the legalization of marijuana in Canada, Bop is on the side of Pro, Pro needs to provide significant arguments that marijuana should be legalized in Canada, and if Con fails to refute those than Pro wins. Legalization will be defined as ONLY pharmacies will be able to sell marijuana. Round 1 is acceptance. Round 2 is opening argument for Pro and rebuttals for Con Round 3 and 4 are for rebuttals This is a civil debate, everyone is free to discuss their own opinions, there will be no cussing.
Marijuana should be legalized in Canada

I do not want this to be a battle of sources.Con stated that my website is a biased source, however Con failed to provide an argument to convince the voters why my source is biased. According to Newstrust the Huffington post is credible as in 2006 it was the 5th most popular weblog overall as measured by web links. [3] Also according to sources [1] and [2] marijuana doesn't kill anyone.Additionally Con may have used a bias sources in DrugAbuse. The name of the website shows that it is more or less an "against drugs" kind of website.I also believe that since marijuana is helpful for 200 plus disease, and since many doctors are recommending it I believe that the alternate hypothesis overrides the null hypothesis.Marijuana is also less addictive than coffee [4], and it doesn't kill people and it's helpful for insomnia and a lot of doctors are recommending it I urge you to vote Pro.Sources:[1] http://norml.org...[2] http://www.newhealthguide.org...[3] http://newstrust.net...[4] http://www.drugsense.org...
Marijuana should be legalized in Canada

Thank you Con for your argument Con states that: “The Amsterdam marijuana experiment did not succeed…, citizens in Amsterdam are now alarmed that their children are increasingly exposed to it.” However I would like to point out that Con assume that coffee shops and other medical buildings will be able to sell this drug as stated by his sources and in his argument , however as stated in round one, I stated that “Legalization will be defined as ONLY pharmacies will be able to sell marijuana.” Thus as Con did not read the definitions pointed out in Round One and this argument is considered useless. Con also states that marijuana is more harmful than cigarettes, however I would like to quickly point out that since its introduction to mankind, cannabis has most yet killed a single person. [1] According to Doctor Paul Hornby, a biochemist and human pathologist who also happens to be one of the leading authorities on cannabis research: "You have to smoke something like 15,000 joints in 20 minutes to get a toxic amount of delta-9 tetrahydrocannibinol," [2] Which of course is impossible. Moreover Con again did not read my first post when I stated that only pharmacies will be able to sell marijuana, which is unlike cigars in the fact that you can buy it at a multitude of places. Con states again and again how marijuana is harmful however this graph below shuts down all of his/her arguments Con states that marijuana is more harmful than it is helpful, however this is not the case, a) as stated by the graph above and according to Dr. Tod Mikuriya: "After dealing with about 10,000 patents in the last 15 years, I'd say about 200 different medical conditions respond favorably to cannabis," [2] Although cannabis is addictive, the strict measures the government can take to prevent the use of medical marijuana and that amount of benefits it has clearly shows that the pros of legalizing marijuana far outweighs the cons.Con states that legalizing marijuana hurts the economy do to impairs intellectual abilities, you can say the same thing for over the counter drugs and painkillers, who are still legal today even though they kill over 100,000 people each year [2]. Since marijuana only impairs intellectual capacities, you can say that over the counter drugs hurts the economy more than marijuana. Marijuana can replace the prescription drugs, and less people would die and the economy would thrive. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://www.ibtimes.com...
Marijuana should be legalized in Canada

Why? Marijuana is a great cure for insomnia, as a matter of fact Cannabis has been used for the treatment of both pain and sleep disorders since ancient times. According to researcher Feinberg in Clinical Pharmacology, "The effect on sleep of cannabis admiration closely resembles those induced by lithium. " [1] Again according to lead author Karen I. Bolla for the Journal Sleep, "Marijuana users report negligible use of alcohol, sleeping pills, or other medicines to induce sleep. Argument 2: Marijuana is used to alleviate a lot of medical aliments According to International Business Times Cannabis is used as an medical treatment for a lot of different diseases, it helps with Alzheimer"s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, arthritis, depression, anxiety, hepatitis C, morning sickness, cancer, HIV/AIDS and chemo [2], all of these screams out the legalization of Marijuana, since it helps with so many diseases doctor can just put cannabis into their storage rooms, instead of adding a variety of medicines that helps with all of the for mentioned diseases. According to Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a former national administrator of the U. S. government's marijuana research programs, "There is no product out there today - anything - that has as many benefits as medical marijuana, "It's unlimited," Hornby said of marijuana. "Grow more, get more medicine. Additionally unlike over the counter drugs which causes more than 100,000 people in the world each year, there has been no death from cannabis use anywhere [3] According to Dr. Paul Hornby, a biochemist and human pathologist who is one of the leading authorities on cannabis research: "I've heard you have to smoke something like 15,000 joints in 20 minutes to get a toxic amount of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, I challenge anybody to do that. " Sources: [1] . http://blog.sfgate.com... [2] . http://www.ibtimes.com... [3] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Infinite Regress disproves Moral Realism

The objection to moral realism, I believe, can be summed up as such:1. Moral statements require justification.2. Justifications must be axiomatic or based on an axiom.3. There are no axiomatic statements justifying moral statements.4. Therefore, no moral statement is justified. To put it even more simply, one could simply ask "Why? " to a moral statement and keep repeating it to every justification provided. However by comparing it to more precise forms of logic we can discover the error in this reasoning. Asking "Why? " to 1+1 makes no sense, because it is irreducible and asking such a question makes no sense. By bringing it up to a more common scale we can infer that moral statements are, in fact, axiomatic. Of course, nihilists circumvent this by establishing a difference between "morality" and "metaphysics. " However, if one can demonstrate where metaphysics becomes morality, we can see that objective moral values exist. The ontology of moral value can be compared to the ontology of color. Would you say that all stop signs are neither inherently red nor inherently any other color? Perhaps color designation is simply a complex set of labels that evolved to give a psychological or economic advantage to it's adherents. The concept of "red" is merely be a human invention necessitated by our senses, but does not have any sort of universal truth or reality behind it. But it does. The infinite regress argument is flawed because there is a sense in which moral propositions (or color propositions) can be evaluated. They can be evaluated according to the psychological context that makes those propositions meaningful. Now I don't think I've missed anything important so I'll end it here. Your turn, Pro.
Infinite Regress disproves Moral Realism

Alright, MouthWash. Let's jam. http://www.youtube.com...Before we begin, I want to lay out the position I will be taking. This will give MW the opportunity to familiarize himself with my argument and jargon, and it will also permit him to particularize his arguments to the thesis I will be defending.I will be defending here a particular formulation of the infinite regress objection to realism which I term the Normative Contingency Thesis. I have articulated this objection in detail elsewhere [http://www.debate.org... | Round 2]; however, for the specific purposes of this debate, the NCT can be understood as claiming that ethics, commonly recognized, assumes a justificationalist structure: one or more normative conclusions derived from one or more meta-ethical value premises. Hence, normative conclusions and some value premises are contingent on higher-order value claims. In short, normative propositions are founded on, and derived from, meta-ethical value claims. But, in addition to the contingency of specific normative propositions, we can include also the contingency of the meta-ethical values posited to found systems of normative derivations (specifically, contingency on the discursive fiat of the speaker), demonstrating the underlying infinite regress obfuscated by the assertion of an axiomatic "first principle".You're up, MW.
Infinite Regress disproves Moral Realism

I have recently thought of a solution to the "infinite regress" problem which claims to refute objective moral facts. If my idea is ridiculous or is already known, it doesn't matter; I'm just trying learn about this subject right now. An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, . .. , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:1. Ethical sentences express propositions. 2. Some such propositions are true. 3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Rules:(1) Please have at least some knowledge of ethical philosophy before accepting. (2) No trolling, flaming, semantics, lawyering, etc.