BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Geometry will never be used in my life.

You're a highschool freshman? Look, let me give you an unfortunate truth. Geometry is a very basic level of math that is essential in itself or as a stepping stone to math to any degree or job outside of a mcdonalds after highschool. It is not something that a student can be expected to learn at college, even if you are doing something ENTIRELY outside of the realm of math (I'm talking Women Studies majors too). I am a community college math tutor. I work with first year students here who, if they are as behind as you are suggesting, would be knee deep in s*** (pardon my french). Because these students then would be in programs where they are expected to work up from whereever they are to advanced algebra and trigonometry in fifteen weeks. That's the equivalent of three years of material if they have never taken geometry. Again, this is for everyone, pre-nursing, electronic technician, creative writing, anything. Not to mention that geometry is on the ACT, SAT and GED, standardized tests that determine whether you get into college in the first place. Geometry is probably some of the easiest math on the ACT, there is also trig and high algebra, even pre-calculus. And what's worse my friend about what you are saying, I have empathy for you, but it is this: You say you have friends and/or know people who can't spell or read at a decent level in high school? Now granted, there are people of all reading levels and I know many adults who can't spell to save their life. But highschool cannot be dumbed down to the point where everyone might avoid geometry so these kids can be left to practice basic reading comprehension at 15 years old. To do so would be a massive disservice to students of higher ability (and probably work ethic), and even barring that, would fail to prepare students for the real world. It's OK to not be ready for geometry, that is totally acceptable (at least within a school). If a student can't handle basic algebra and arithmetic, they need to cover that before moving on to harder subjects. If they have trouble with reading comprehension, they need to be in a remedial reading class. But they will need to eventually to pass geometry if they have even the slightest hope of getting into college (or tradeschool). And when I said "within a school", that's right. Because in the real world, those kids are way behind, or would be way behind if they never got through in geometry in high school. We can lower the bar at school, but for every students peril, because technology and economy (competitive labor market) is advancing with or without you. That's the hard truth my friend. Learn geometry. Get to calculus if you can. If there are people around you struggling, that's a teacher's problem, not yours. And geometry is certainly NOT going anywhere.
Geometry will never be used in my life.

Along with other things, classes that focus on smaller skills that many students don't have would be more beneficial for students. For example, there are many students I know that have the handwriting and spelling skills of a kindergartner. I have never had a class that really focused intensely on computer typing skills, and in my 8th grade class last year, we only were assigned to read 2 very short books on our own. In Junior High, we were READ books. The other two were read to us in class. We could very well remove geometry (which i will remind you will probably be taught to you in any college class you take if your degree you want requires it), and replace it with classes that focus on the above skills. Or at least shorten the math classes or cut a portion of time to teach these skills.
Geometry will never be used in my life.

Ok. Well, I gave many cases above where geometry is actually used on a day-to-day basis. Manufacturing, engineering, architecture and construction are $billion industries that employ probably a close to a third of the population. Financial, insurance and accounting services which heavily utilize math employ even more. In fact it's difficult to think of what useful jobs wouldn't require some geometry (whether in practice, or as a stepping stone to other kinds of math). Healthcare? Academia? So it clearly isn't useless. But I suppose if there were something more critical that might take its place, then we could question its worth. Off the top of my head, high school students ought to know more about computers and personal finance. I also think America has neglected the importance of vocational education, metal and woodworking among other things. Not sure why CNC machining isnt taught to highschool students who want it (at least any I know of). Of course they would have to know geometry to even operate CNC. So there are other things a high school student ought to learn that are more important than geometry, I'll admit. And if it's a matter of cutting some programs for the sake of others, it might be worth it for the sake of getting young people jobs. In that case though, geometry should be kept around a lot longer than, let me think: history, psychology, biology, chemistry, physics, foreign language, higher english classes, just to name a few. For the reasons I said above and in my last post, geometry can be quite useful for many professions and doesnt deserve the chopping block until a bunch of much more obviously (comparatively) useless programs kick the bucket. Talent for math can lead to some of the highest paying careers around. I might ask, what would you prefer to learn? Geometry may benefit you in ways you can't perceive yet. Regardless, there is a great potential for it to be utilized in the skilled trades, engineering, architecture and all kinds of design. May be boring or seeming irrelevant to you, but I wouldn't like to think what might happen if the next generation of potential tradespeople didn't know the difference between a circle and an oval. Think of all of the things around you that required an eye for desitgn and proportion to be made. Your very school itself, every physical product you enjoy would not be possible without geometry. How can you really question its importance?
Geometry will never be used in my life.

Though in some fields it may be appropriate to learn geometry, is it worth government dollars to pay for a student to learn something it is very likely he will never use? If one decides he does want to become an engineer, why learn it in high school, when he will probably re-learn it in college? As you can see, it seems quite worthless to teach geometry to a large majority of students that will probably never choose such a specific life path.
Geometry will never be used in my life.

Of course it is going to depend on what you choose to do for a career. I personally use geometry every day at work as a welder fabricator. If you have any interest in engineering, manufacturing, architecture, or a building trade you will use concepts from geometry daily. Maybe you don't have any interests in these fields, so really will never find a use for geometry. However I'll also say that simply the time spent doing math is going to improve your ability doing all math, which is fundamental for other disciplines too like finance, accounting, actuary, data science, hard sciences, etc. Well but then maybe you'll say you just want to be a musician, a writer, a nurse, or something else that doesn't even include math. Maybe that will be the case, maybe not. I'll tell you now that I am doing something totally different than I thought I would be doing when I was your age, and it is the courses I least expected to be useful that came in the most handy. They say that the average person in your (nearly my) generation will work something like three to five or more jobs in their lifetime. The possibility there means that you will likely use geometry or be forced to work with someone daily who uses it heavily who needs you to basically understand it. So. Wouldn't write it off completely. Compared to something like Latin or cursive handwriting you're clearly getting more useful knowledge with geometry.
Ban should be imposed on violent video games.

In the year of 2007; a school was attacked in Mexico. Many students and teachers were severely injured and some, even dead. The attacker was a normal child. Had a very "normal" childhood and teen life. "He was that sort of child who would bring home great grades" stated his mother, "however, he was very much into computer graphics and street racing." "I knew ___________ since we were in 8th grade, whenever a new 'Halo' game, 'NFS' game or 'COD' game came out, we'd camp outside of Gamestop so we could get our hands first on them. He always used to beat me" said his high school best friend, "I don't know what got into you, but you're not the same" he stated. This child was brainwashed by the video games he played. To adolescents, virtual experiences feel very realistic; not only because of the amazing graphics that are designed today, but because they are taking on a major role in the murder or assassination of someone innocent. When kids play a game, they are one of the main characters inside the adventure. The entire experience becomes a lot more meaningful and deadly in their brains, which are forming new connections every day. Children should not be allowed to play violent video games. Either, there should be an ID check or the games should be simply banned.
Ban should be imposed on violent video games.

I don't need much of a response to this and I am going to keep it pretty shortMy adversary is proposing a change in the status quo so it is on him to present evidence and a case to actually change it. He cites a case and says there is a correlation between a violent act and violent video games without ever showing a source or anything to support it. He just simply says acts occur because of violence video games, this is just a statement not an argument. For his case to stand he would have to show evidence of a correlation between violent video games and violent acts in real life, and then show that this is reason enough to impose a ban. Slippery slopeIn some ways this is what his argument would lead to. Imposing a ban on violent video games because of acts that occur, is not solving the solution. He would then have to advocate for the banning of violent movies, pictures, and everything else that could act as a catalyst for violence. At worst case the game itself is just a catalyst for issues that are already inside of a teen. More reasonable ideasCheck IDS before someone buys a game or implement some mental health check under certain games that are released. Granted I think this is really bored in itself because a game is never going to be the prime reason someone goes out and murders someone else. There will always be issues that need to be addressed. At worst case scenario the game is merely a catalyst and there is no way to actually ban it effectively. Conclusionthe best quote I have seen for this topic is"It is not surprising that most schoolyard shooters and many adult mass murderers had played violent video games in their spare time. Violent people are often attracted to violent entertainment — on TV, in film or through game consoles. But the ability to document a causal link — that consuming violent entertainment leads to violent behavior — has eluded social scientists for years."[1]Violent people like violent content, but it is hard to show that violent content is the main reason they are violent. There are much more pratical ways to get around an all out ban such as people actually checking IDS when they buy games. This is just another industry in America that has its right to expression. It is no different than the movie industry or any other industry we can think of.There is also no evidence to show that violent games are a primary cause of violent behavior. My adversary would have to prove this point to win this debate. He does not show this and merely just makes an assumption. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com...
Substantially Increasing Social Services for People in Poverty in the United States

Now, we need to define social services. According to Merriam-Webster, social services are activities designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or disadvantaged). Since the resolution is that we should increase them for people in poverty, I can assume that we are not discussing the disabled. Now, social services can manifest themselves in many ways. It could literally be a check handed to poor people, it could be a soup kitchen, it could be almost anything. Now, I'm not socialist (though I used to be), but I still believe in helping other people as human beings instead of just subjects. Doing the right thing should always come before anything else, and when we see these people in need, it's not right to not help them. I am looking forward to your argument!
Transgender Bathroom Rights

This is a fantastic topic and I just can't get enough of it. I'll be taking the Con side, as well as playing devil's advocate. This means I'll be arguing against the resolution that "individuals should not be banned from public bathrooms that do not correspond to their sex."I'll be making the assumption that the burden of proof is shared. This topic is based more in opinion than fact, in most ways. As such, it does not make sense to place the burden of proof on a single person (as opposed to a more scientific or existential topic.)Positional StatementFor balance, I won't be posting my arguments until round 2. For fairness, I'll be giving my opponent a "heads up" on the position I am taking in this debate. I am not claiming that individuals should always be limited to the bathroom matching their sex. Rather, I will be arguing that said right should be circumstantial and based upon something that has little to do with the transgender individual(s) in question. I look forward to debating the legendary Danielle and I await her opening arguments.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

Miley Cyrus is viewed as an icon because of her fame. She received that fame when she was young, innocent and pretty harmless. Now that her image has evolved, she continues to be an icon because of her fame that she gained when she was making good decisions. People shouldn't look up to her, and I know a lot of parents that advise their children strongly against looking up to Miley as a role model. Yes Miley may be a role model, her phase probably will blow over, and everyone does make mistakes, but being in a public eye and making those mistakes and bad decisions does not, in any way, make Miley Cyrus a GOOD role model for young girls and teens alike.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

True, very true but all I'm saying is people chose who they want to look up to and no one's facing them to view Miley Cyrus as an icon. Yes, she has made some bad decisions but for some reason people still are fixated on her, if she was really all that bad of a role model, people would not look up to her and she would have faded away by now. And let's face it, if Miley wasn't acting the way she is, the world would be focused on tearing another artist's flaws apart. So in conclusion, Miley is a role model, her phase will blow over, everybody makes mistakes and nobody is perfect so it is not right to hold hers against her.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

I am not saying that Miley is a bad person, because she isn't. I personally believe that she is just going through a phase and the drugs, twerking and raunchy clothing will pass along with her Hannah Montana act. The debate, however, is about her being a good role model for young girls. While no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, Miley shouldn't act as if actions do not affect others. Who knows what some young girl might go out and try, knowing that her idol is doing drugs and flaunting her body. I know most teenage girls have more sense than to go an do drugs, but with their idol bragging about it, plus added peer pressure from friends, they could easily be influenced into making bad, possibly harmful decisions. Miley is allowed to make her mistakes, take risks, be a 20-something just living her life, but when that life is being lived in front of the entire world, it would be wise to make better decisions.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

I understand what you are saying but what I don't understand is how everyone is so fixated on her being such a bad person. Like you just said, she didn't create any of the stuff we associate her with, so why is she blamed for her decisions? People used and abused molly other drugs way before Miley did. She makes mistakes, she's human, whatelse do you expect. Personally, just because she is famous, she she should be expected to be flawless.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

First off, twerking originated in Atlanta night clubs, and Miley is not the first artist to have twerked. Her haircut is extremely similar to that of the artist Pink. And yes her bear costume from the VMA's is being marketed around the world because she is famous. You are correct when you say that Miley has influence in the world but as a role model for young girls, that influence is not a good thing. There are many reasons why Miley is not a good role model for teenage girls. First, she flaunts her body. Not only in her VMA performance, but it is a wide known fact that pictures of Miley, taken by her own phone, in her underwear are on the internet. Having a positive body image is a good factor, but the way that she flaunts it basically sends the message to teens that its alright to post and send pictures like this to people or the internet. Secondly, Miley seems to have no respect for her body. Like I stated before, Miley isn't fazed by showing the world her body. But respect for her body also includes the drugs that she is probably using. In many of her songs, Miley sings lyrics that reference party drugs such as purp and molly. There have also been many pictures taken of Miley while she was smoking a bong. That is defiantly not setting a good example for young girls to follow.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

So are you saying that if I do the same dance move as an artist or do my hair like them that I am not still expressing myself, but rather just copying them? So much is 'trademarked' as her's. When we think of "twerking" we think of Miley, we refer to that haircut as "Miley Cyrus hair" and they sell Halloween costumes, sweatshirts, and other clothing related to her bear We Can Stop costume from the VMAs all over the country. That being said, whether her influence is positive or negative, there is no doubt that she does have an influence on people all over the world.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

Miley's VMA performance defiantly gained attention, but not all attention is good. She could have easily gained the attention she deserved with a gut-wrenching, tear-jerking performance of Wrecking Ball. Without all of the gimmicks and the nudity of the video, the song Wrecking Ball is sung beautifully. Miley might be trying to be herself, but twerking, the hair cut, and the slinky outfits have all been done before by other artists and performers. I'm not saying that she is unoriginal but Miley defiantly isn"t the first or the last to use those methods to get attention. Plus, her behavior is not setting a good example for the millions of girls who look up to her.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

True, but as far as the VMA's go, she accomplished what she was hoping to accomplish; she wanted people's attention. As provocative is it may have been, there is much worse she could do. Her breakup with Liam Hemsworth was also not her fault for it being so public, that is her life, not much is private. Personally, the thing I admire most about her is that she is being herself and not trying to be anyone or anything she is not just to please others. To me, that is much more important than her trying to please the general public.
Miley Cyrus as a role model

This 'phase' Miley is going through is almost certainly to distance herself from the 'Hannah Montana' persona, but Miley is letting herself go too far, and continues to try to be a role model in the process. From her very public breakup with Liam Hiemsworth to her performance at the VMA's, Miley isn't setting a good example for the pre-teen and teen girls who look up to her. Even though Miley is no longer Hannah Montana, and she is no longer associated with Disney, she is still a role model for the girls, like me, who grew up with her. Her actions as of late do not set an appropriate example for teenage girls as they grow up.
Why News Papers are bad in this era

With a transition from print to web news, you will start to a transition of what is covered in the news. The concern of getting rid of paper newspapers isn't whether it will effect those without wifi. It is what will be covered by the new generation of news. John Oliver did an interesting piece on the transition away from print news. Which cited a lot of facts I will mention in the next round. The concern to remember when transitioning from print to media is if it is driven by profits, because if it is, it is the next step in the transition to commercialized news, which means profits will drive the news, and therefore drive content.
Why News Papers are bad in this era

for people who say recycle people say recycle only saves around 14 tress and 4 billions tress cut down Google it ----------------------- for the idiots that say what about people without Internet blame it on the fleking govemnt that too lazy to fix there stuff plus face book and good getting that fixed ------------------- for thows people who say what about the old people well in world war 1 and 2 they fighten for our freedom we should give them thanks but not hold back techolgys that will save earth and people for them -------------------------------------------------------
Should the U.S. Government Substanittially Increase its help to Sub-Sahran Africa

I've gone into sufficient depth to make my point. The only thing that remains is for small details in the implementation of this broad bottom-up solution. I clearly showed that the current African aid model is not working, and that we have previously expanded the funding as you suggest, to not only no avail, but to a detriment of the status quo. I also showed a solution to the problem that involves eliminating the immense amount of money we waste this way AND is currently solving the problems we're wasting money trying to solve. You have not given me any substantiative arguments to refute - only regurgitated information I already provided and gave me cannon fodder instead of counterargument. My points stand with no need for clarification.
Should the U.S. Government Substanittially Increase its help to Sub-Sahran Africa

Thank you for taking me on in a Debate. Ok first off you say to give the money to women what are these women going to do with that money since there arent enough roads and most women there have 2-3 kids and they also do not have any cars there usually. Second how are you going to educate these women since most of them already have kids because they are forced to have sex with guys that they do not know and second how are they going to get to these schools ecspecially since most of them are very far away from the places that need them. Third how would you be able to know that this money that you are talking about would be used on the people and not on other things as is the money that we are sending to them currently and second most of their governments in SSA are not able to support this money from tariffs coming into their country. SSA-Sub-Saharan Africa Oh and um sorry about the double spacing it was from a debate that I had and I was just copying and pasting.