BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No money for education

http://www.finitesite.com... My opponent is welcome to support my position. There are computers at public libraries, colleges and universities, available for free. Courseware is also free. This is more accessible to the poor because Hours are whenever you want to learn. There are no problem libraries. There is no one to bully you. The education you get will be the education you want. You can learn your whole life and not just K-12. I have already made that argument and my opponent replied incoherently. Again I am not advocating private education. I am advocating no education. A school voucher is a payment to a private school with funds that should be used for public schools. By using money that should go to improve the public schools, and instead giving it to private schools, School vouchers hurt the poor. The school system is not only racist but sexist and classist as well. Is there more emphasis on boys' athletics or girls'? How about in the colleges? A free educaion is exactly what we don't have. Remember it costs you. This will be simple. Everyone who would like all the money back that they spent for an education will vote for me. The "education" that you get is completely worthless. No employer will care if you know what the capital of Uruguay is. If you are self-taught that will catch his or her attention. It's clearly: Is the education you get in the public schools worth the money you are paying for it? You have to keep paying this $1500 for your whole life but are educated for only a few years, only about one-fourth of your life, so the real cost is about four times that, $6000 per year. So that's 1500 for life vs. "education." A self-taught education is far superior to a classroom "education." A community or neighborhood learning center with all the people participating vs the current system. Only losers cry "irrelevant." Well the teachers do worse than the students on these tests so what does that tell you? Again "private." I am not advocating private. I am advocating no. If the purpose of education is to prepare you for work then why not let big business finance education as they are eager to do and see what happens. The purpose of education goes far beyond that, however. How does English Lit prepare you for employment? It doesn't. It's not supposed to. Hannah Montana would be fine. Do you know the Bone Dance? YouTube would be more entertaining. Use the time you save to google "open courseware" as I have already advised. Visit your nearby computer, library, college and university. I have left out some of the details in order to allow the individuals to think for themselves. What is an "education?" Are we getting one? How should it be done differently? If you vote for my opponent but think about what has been said I will be happy. If you vote for me that would be OK too but more important is to think. My opponent is 21 and still in high school. I rest my case.
No money for education

I support the value of independent thought. I believe that the mind learns best at its own cadence and under its own direction and motivation. I believe that opportunities for learning should not be confined to youth but should continue throughout life. The criteria that would support this value in an educational system are freedom of learning and expression not found in schools varieties of learning experience beyond the "classroom." Allowing each mind to set its own path Diversity of students and especially teachers. Anyone who wants to teach should be allowed to teach unless there are other issues. Free education for all. Currently anyone planning on attending college needs to do some serious thinking about money. Finland is said to have the best school system. We might be able to learn a few things from them but I doubt it. I support a home education model applied to the neighborhood with participation by all.
No money for education

The Pro's argument is an incoherent rant. Basically, it's a bunch of assertions: 1: Our system sucks. 2: No Child Left Behind is a cleverly designed military draft. (?) 3: Home schooling beats "it" like a mule. Thus this rebuttal will be structured into three observations, which will outline the impacts in today's debate and then discuss which side is winning off of htose. Observation One: There is no analysis. No warrants, no impacts. Only claims. He asserts all of this, without any logic or any statistical evidence. As a result, this CANNOT be counted as legitimate evidence in the debate. For example, if I assert: - Publicly funded education has stopped thousands of nuclear holocausts. Then obviously you want me to tell you how. One cannot accept that the claim (nuclear holocausts) is true until there is some reason (analysis like I give, or statistics, quotes whatever) that back that claim up. The PRO gives none of those, and so his claims are discarded. Observation Two: The PRO, even if his assertions are true, OMITS how privately funded education will stop the problems he discusses. He gives you no proof that the PRO plan will fix the problems he asserts, and so even if you VOTE PRO, you still won't solve anything. As a result, the problems he outline REMAIN PROBLEMS on his side. Essentially, there are no unique arguments made by the PRO, and so there's no reason to vote for him. Observation Three: He refutes none of the CON's points. These impacts are warranted and impacted. I'll go through them: (C = Claim, I = Impact) C1: Education is a fundamental human right. I: Depriving individuals of education deprives them of their human rights. C2: Federal funding is necessary to ensure all individuals are able to access their right to education. I: The PRO plan deprives individuals of education. C3: Curriculum based education provides the most stringent standards for student development. I: Implementing the PRO's plan will remove these standards, degrading the value of an education, and the evaporating much of the learning a student COULD have under publicly funded education. C4: Capitalist-based schooling exacerbates socioeconomic problems. I: The PRO's plan separates individuals arbitrarily and keeps minorities from achieving. The claim is almost the impact itself: Do you want to perpetuate a system where an arbitrary factor such as race will keep you from accessing your human rights? C5: Privately funded education will not benefit the economy. I: A diminished economy harms all 310 million Americans, hurts our global competitiveness and on the whole is very, very, very, bad. :) Observation Four: Summary of the Previous Three: 1) There are no PRO impacts, only unwarranted claims. 2) The PRO offers no way to solve for those claims. 3) The CON offers clear impacts, with clear reasoning why the PRO plan will not solve for them. Observation Five: Vote Con, please. Hah.
Rap Battle #4

Going to have to be quick, I have no time.It means you'll get a easy pass,But your weak, sleazy rap,Will not be hard to outthink and outclass.Now, I don't want to be all cruel,I won't mention that your niece screwed Ja Rule, And how she screamed like a prostitute,As she was flayed with three lobotomy tools.So will you fight or submit?Talking about the size of my dick,If it was the size of a pin,Then why does your bitch,Say nine inches thick?You don't have the rhymes to win,Just a mind that's thick,Like the thighs of your bitch.Plus my 'sister' is trans, Nice vagina, isn't it?
Rap Battle #4

My apoligies for pussin out, I didn't have the timeto debate mouthwash ATM, he was not worth my rhymeBut a lose on my Debate profile wouldn't look that good,people would expect a loss from me, I'm white, not in the hood.But still, who gives a f*ck? I'll kick mouthwash's a$$! I'll kick him back to preschool, where he would still fail the classI would fvck up his sister, she'd pass out from my massand it's obvious that it's mouthwash who I will outclassYour sister gets in my hot areas, she want's to trespassI'll get so far up her pvssy, cause it's like a cravassYour d!ck is so damn tiny, can't see it with no eyeglassthat's why in prison you be raped, but you like to be harassedJust give the fvck up while you can. There's no way you can win.My d!ck is like the eiffel tower, yours the size of a pinYou face is ugly and carved up, like a fvckin' pumpkinWipe your blood from my face, i'll need more than a napkinYou gotta know your gonna get it rough, like a sharkskinYour like the ice king with no princesses, I'm like jake and finnYou sister obviously wants me, she's touchin' on my skinMe and your sis will find an inn, crack out some gin, she'll make me grin Your sis wants to be on top of me, she likes to make me grunt,You know where I am now, right mouthwash? Am I in your sister's c***?I gotta use a rubber though, be awkward if she pregnantYour so flamin' you burnin up like the end of my blunt Took me 6 minutes, 37 seconds to do that. Your fvck'd, bro.
Rap Battle #4

I'm not gonna take it,Tonight a Mossad agent,Will pop your face in,With a rock and break it,Blood and snot sprayin,Shock you awake,You cannot escape,He's got some chains.You get locked away in,The bottom basement.Your family told us they're not payin,Though your niece was in lots of pain,Not from losing you,But from getting shot and raped,My cock stayed in,Till she wanted to faint,Then I beat her on the pavement,The next morning your mother sees what look like red popsicle stains.________________Dude, that entire thing was just one continuous multi. I thought it up in about ten minutes. Give up.
Rap Battle #4

That was your entire rap? This is gonna be toughnot because it was good, but because it wasnt that buffYour rap lacked lots of skill, its not smooth, its damn roughTalking bout' killin my neice, your dead, Ill beat you till i had enoughI don't give a f*ck if you buddhist, hindu or a jewI whip your a$$, and then your wife's a$$, she be out way past her curfewWhen im through with your wife, she's gonna need some "mouthwash" too She'll be drownin' in a white wave, she'll need to bring her snowshoes I guess, your right, i'm a missle threat, i'll blow your GF until she explodesShe'll cling to my body for a rodeo, she's wrapped so tight i'm like lassoedI sure emptied myself onto her, afterwards it felt like i was hallowedYou can't get in my mind, b*tch! My mind is like a safe with a long a** code I'm like a blunt, bitch, I'm smokin' a$$ hotYour like a forest fire, you flamin, like a firefoxI know your hella shocked by me, like you got hit with a billion giga-wattsI got bullets on speed-dial, yeah I call the shots! There we go, mouthwash. bring it.
Rap Battle #4

Hey man, give me some respect,Before I punch your teeth down your neck,Strangle your niece to death,With a barb wired piece of fence,Then tear off strips of bleeding flesh,Your mother seemed a little upset,When she was told I flung you so hard,You qualified as a international missile threat.You inevitably will be the centerpiece,Of my trophy room, which contains heads of deadly MCs,Using pent-up energy I'll kick your *ss until your rectum bleeds, Then go to bed while your girl sleeps next to me.Alright, that was my opening. Have at me!
Rap Battle #4

Rap battle time. The person who accepts this I will allow them to have an extra round by starting their rap in their first round. IF you so choose, It can be video, audio, or just text.RULES:1) Offend your opponent. That is the way rap is. If you can't put up with that, don't accept.2)No targeting the opponent's dad, since yesterday was father's day. Mom's are still ok.3) Be good at rapping.THAT IS All.CHALLENGE OF THE CHEESEDINGO!!!!
People are too dependent on technology.

I would like to differ from your opinion when you say that we will forget our basics, that is we would not be able to survive in the absence of technology. If our GPS gadget is dysfunctional, we can always ask people around to guide us to our location. Say we are completely lost, the invention of the mobile phone has made it possible to simply call someone and ask them to help us out. On the other front, at the base level, that is in primary and higher secondary schools, children are still and will continue to be taught basic arithmetic and basic sciences; that is never going to change. Even to work with technology, basic skills-set is required and that is exactly what is being imparted, as a whole. In fact, contrary to your point, technology plays a significant role in extrapolating known information to solve problems not encountered before. For example, an app like Casual greatly aids in visualizing your ideas and lets you understand them fully. Technology empowers us to do more.
People are too dependent on technology.

Technology is just a tool, I agree but lets go back to our formative school years shall we. We were taught how to do long division, not just given a calculator and taught that you enter two numbers with a division sign in between. One should understand how to do things the manual way before being giving the technological or automatic route. Over time certain skills will dry up and possibly vanish if they are no longer taught. Lets say you are in a time sensitive situation and need to make a calculation for instance. If the calculator or whatever instrument you normally use malfunctions and you do not know the manual or freehand way to extrapolate information then what happens? Nothing happens either the problem goes unsolved or someone who has the knowledge to do it without technology has to take care of it. In conclusion technology is a wonderful thing but it can not be fully appreciated or used responsibly without understanding how to complete a given task without its aid.
People are too dependent on technology.

It is true that there has been an explosion of technology and people have taken to it largely. People have started utilizing technology in their day-to-day lives to facilitate easier means of completing daily tasks. Technology has always been seen as an aid to humanity, not as a sole cause for our activities. With the advent of smart phones and apps, people are able to do things faster and better. True. But that does not mean that without it, they will not be able to perform the same tasks. As Bill Gates puts it "Technology is just a tool". While our grandfathers can manage to do the same tasks with ease without external aid, why not us? It is only a question of comfort levels. Take e-mail, e-mail has made communication faster and easier, but even before it, communication did happen, just as it happens today. As Elbert Hubbard said "One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. But no machine can do the work of one extraordinary man".
People are too dependent on technology.

Technology is a great thing which has led mankind from hunter gatherers roaming from place to place into the dominant species of the planet. However as technology has advanced we as a society in general have lost the need for basic survival skills and knowledge. How often is that when people get lost or stranded for any considerable length of time that they perish? Granted today as a result of technology people aren't often lost or stranded for long but when they are they more often than not lack a basic knowledge of survival, which would enable them to survive. Our ancestors survived for centuries like that but in the modern world if the average person should somehow be cut off from society for a short period of time they tend to die, either of starvation, exposure or a number of other avoidable factors.
People are too dependent on technology.

I would like to conclude saying that mankind has developed himself into something better ad more evolved with the creation of new technologies, be it in space exploration or mechanized instruments for cleaning the roads. It has made life simpler and better. It must not be forgotten that we have been carrying out our tasks from time unknown. Technological innovations have paved the way for breaking down these tasks into simpler ones, so that we could devote our time and brains to other productive work, that matter more. Our dependence on technology goes only as far that it helps us.
A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being"

This is my first attempt at a personal debate challenge and I was not aware that the text of the challenge itself would be posted in R1. Had I anticipated that, I would have been a little more detailed in my framing of the debate. In your acceptance, you clarified your position by saying that you are "happy to defend that a zygote, embryo, and fetus are not human beings (that is: full human lives subject to the same rights and protections as you and I). " I ask my opponent to consider that this debate was originated in the "Science" section of DDO's forum for debating and not in the "politics" or "philosophy" sections. Does Con concede the scientific fact [1] that a human being in the zygote, embryo and fetal stage of their life is biologically "a human being? "If Con does accept the fact that (at least biologically) a human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal Stages of their life is "a human being," then I believe my opponent may have accepted my challenge prematurely. Again, thanks to my opponent for accepting the challenge. I look forward to reading the responses and comments. [1] . http://www.princeton.edu...(biology).html
A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being"

I appreciate the challenge, and I am happy to defend that a zygote, embryo, and fetus are not human beings (that is: full human lives subject to the same rights and protections as you and I). I shall be defending this stance until the fetus is viable and has cognitive abilities, recognized as around the 20-24th week of development (per Roe v. Wade).
This House would ban drivers from using mobile phones

My opponent started out with some stats on how apparently many drivers in the USA have been guilty of using gadgets while driving. Ok, so let's take my opponent at his best and agree that yes, a majority of drivers are using phones while driving. This, in and of itself, does not mean anything. A majority of people in the USA owning guns does not mean that just because of that, we should ban all guns. Then, my opponent says that there are already fines in place which are actually quite high to punish these offenders but according to him, people don't take them seriously. How do you actually know that people don't take these fines seriously? Also, when you admit that there are already fines in place, this goes exactly with what I have said in Round 1 where I asked why should we specifically ban phones when existing laws already penalise someone for irresponsible behaviour which INCLUDES texting. What we can do is maybe to increase these fines so people would take them seriously but there is no need to introduce a new law specifically tackling phones. My opponent then admits it is hard to enforce a phone ban but he dismisses it and claims we should install more CCTVs just so we can check out who was actually using a phone. So instead of easily raising fines he would use more money to install more equipment and hire more people so that we can specifically establish whether someone was indeed on the phone. My opponent's final sentence in his Round 2 was "Drunk driving is against the law and if texting and driving is as bad as drunk driving, shouldn't it be against the law as well?" Exactly. ANY FORM of irresponsible driving is already against the law. So in a sense, texting and driving ALREADY is against the law. What my opponent needs to address is why should we specifically enforce a ban that makes it illegal for anyone to so much as look at their phone when driving EVEN IN instances when the car is stopped at traffic lights etc. He has not managed to do so.
This House would ban drivers from using mobile phones

http://www.nhtsa.gov... There was a 2012 national survey done by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and it was found that 660,000 drivers use cell phones or electronic devices while driving. Although there are laws against texting and driving and the fines are usually at least $200 most people do not take these laws and fines seriously so it is mostly just known and ignored. I am in no way saying that 12 year olds should not be able to ride in vehicles or that we should ban all distractions. To ban all distractions are nearly impossible, no matter what we take away there will always be something else as you pointed out with eating and such. But we can try to improve and eliminate the bigger distractions that are more evident, than the other less controllable and obvious ones. Going off of what you pointed out with having issues, enforcing phones in car ban laws. Yes, it would be difficult, but using your example, yes, if someone is caught hands-free one could claim that they were talking to themselves but by using street cams and such to double check their word. "Reaction time is as delayed for a driver talking on a cell phone as for a driver who is legally drunk." http://www.automotive-fleet.com... Drunk driving is against the law and if texting and driving is as bad as drunk driving, shouldn"t it be against the law as well?
This House would ban drivers from using mobile phones

I will now proceed with rebuttals. My opponent started off by saying that most drivers use mobile phones in hazardous ways that lead to accidents. However, what about an equally significant proportion of people who are good, disciplined drivers? Are you going to ban mobile phones for EVERYONE just because SOME people are irresponsible. The reason I say 'some' is because I do not think there is any evidence to prove a vast majority of drivers use phones dangerously while driving. How can you prove that at any particular time on the road, a majority of drivers are using their phones while driving? It could also be the case that many drivers use the phone when there is traffic gridlock when transiting to/from work, or just to read a text when the light turns red. Surely these actions are ok and don't contribute to accidents too. My opponent then brought out some research about how many people are killed because they are distracted. Upon reading the article, it is plain to see that while texting is a major form of distraction, it is not the only one nor can anyone prove it is the NUMBER ONE form of distraction. Eating and having noisy children in the back are also distractions. According to my opponent then, we should ban all forms of these distractions and children under the age of 12 probably shouldn't be allowed in vehicles. :) My argument against this motion is that there are already laws in the country or in many countries that punish reckless and careless driving. There is no need to make another law exclusive to banning mobile phones. If a driver is texting while driving, then the law can already prosecute him for being reckless, and he falls in the same crime as the person who was munching on a burger while driving. A second argument is that it's not going to be easy to enforce such a ban. If a person was caught talking in hands-free, he could argue he was just talking to himself. Who would really know? Your turn.
This House would ban drivers from using mobile phones

Banning drivers from using mobile phones would cause a lot less accidents and keep people from dying due to drivers not paying attention to the roads. Some say that not all drivers do this, and while this is true, more than most do and poor, innocent people can suffer bad consequences. Source for following: https://www.cdc.gov... In the U.S. alone, more than eight people are killed due to distracted driving (mainly because of being on their phones). And 1,161 are injured.
This House would ban drivers from using mobile phones

Short debate. 2000 chars per round. 24 hours per round. This debate uses judge voting. Nominated judges are: Blade-of-Truth, whiteflame and lannan13. Please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. DO NOT FORFEIT ROUNDS. First round is acceptance and definition. A reminder that if you accept this debate, you are taking the Pro side which means you AGREE with the motion. It is also up to you as Pro to define the motion in your Round 1. Looking forward to a good debate. :)