BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Education

Actually let me clarify the misinterpretation. I am talking about a non capitalistic economy. More specifically I am talking about Parecon; which stands for Participatory Economics which is a vision for an alternative way to operate an economy. Please look up Micheal Albert and Robin Hahnel in the 1980's to early 1990's if you are curious to Parecon. As far as which grades would be effected. I am talking about all education. From Pre-k to PhD. Now to get to your point of biased education. Yes, all education has been biased. Yes, we have the technology and will to change this biased system of education to a non biased view of education. Does this mean every ounce of education will be unbiased. One day I would hypothesize it would be. Now to get to your main point. The reason of current capitalism. To me, it was set up because the barter system was and did need to be changed. However, humanity needs to think over capitalism. It sparks too much ill content. And even biased working atmosphere. It is severally outdated and not even popular among scientist, teachers, military and others. *(After all the teacher who taught you how to write **should** be worth more than the person who plays football just to "entertain" you for a few hours.)* With this type of Economics in mind. Do you think you can breach that type of education?
Free Education

Hello, first I would like to clarify what you mean. I am expecting that by free education that you mean the government is paying for the education (not the teachers teaching for free). This means you are giving all the power to the government in terms of education (see below for more on that). Essentially your idea of "free education" is physically impossible because you are paying it with your taxes.However, you probably mean that anyone can show up to a school and be let in without having to pay...Also, I would like to know how many years of education you want to be free? For example, do you want all colleges to be free, every high school, and every elementary school to be free? So that the government is providing all the education for a student up to like 25 years old?I believe everyone should have an education. However, it being free is not only impossible in a technical sense, but unrealistic in the US. First, this would raise taxes significantly. No one wants to pay more taxes, and this would give the government control of education. This would make such a big problem. You are giving the government control of what is taught to our students. They can make the information biased as much as they would like. If you are a high school student, as I am, you will see that the government's interference in school is already making a horrible dent. Standards have to be met and they just make the teachers stressed and not teaching as well/what they want. Giving the government more power is the problem. Who are they to say what we learn? And if not the government, who gets to decide? The schools? Certainly not if the government is the one funding them. Finally, I would like to bring up this word called capitalism. If the government stayed out of education, our education system would improve and prosper. The bad schools (the expensive and disliked running of the school) would "go out of business". The good schools would then prosper, growing and making our education system better off because of the better content and lower prices. However, what you proposed would make the content biased and the prices higher. There is a reason our society was set up as a capitalist economy....Your turn.
Free Education

Radical Free Education: There was a debate that was instigated by 2 individuals roughly in January of Last year. I would like to re open this debate. Free Education: In matters of Retrospect I have been thinking about our "System" as it stands currently: Topicality: Thus the form of the human civilization to take president in letting humanity achieve free education. Inherency: 1) Economics: We the people of this planet we call home. Pronounce that humans be given the "opportunity" of free education. By, given declarative clause. Let me clarify in Solvency. 2) Economics (A): Any and ALL suspension of money shall cease. Thus, all education will be given example by Teachers, Entrepreneurs, Students who readily want the education. Any and all forms of payment be made by barter system. Let me further clarify. Students can learn real life applications by being taught the foundations of maintaining building codes, electrical systems, lighting, food processing, and further retail management. Thus in return with being taught hands on systems. The person in question can further implement skill sets to of their own choosing. Thus ceasing all strains or limited job placements because of lack of funding. 3) Economics (B): Teachers, faculty, and all servicing members be given status quo of necessary living arrangements. And other function to sustain and live comfortably. After all, they are our educators, our mentors, our embodiment of human culture to pass on to the next generation of children. This is not to say without impeachment or other infringements. These issues can be clarified later if this issue is called upon (Free Education: Economics)*. Harms: 1) Radical movement(s) can dissuade many to all newcomers to education. This is not limited to all human profile(s) of an individual. 2) One form of education. Let me clarify: No school or college can represent any *biased* viewing of one particular education. "Just because you went to an Ivy League college does not mean the Community college should be teaching things differently.* Education should be the same throughout all of the world. This is not to say education can not be improved or studied further. Significancy: 1) Create a world where increase job opportunity is NOT Limited by education. Rather job opportunity is limited by experience. Thus creating a better demand for education: 2) Improving education is paramount in all fields of studies. Solvency: This type of system is implements because money will always fail. Countries will fall, states, and corporations will fall. The only thing to remain constant is our perception of linear time. So sustaining a free education system should be implemented for future generations. Not because of morality. But, because this insures our best survival of our species. Funding by barter system or implementing even a better non currency economics would be ideal. *But then again I'm all up for a non materialistic type of *living*. Please see Economics of Star Trek.*
Free Education

This is basically summing up the Participatory Economics you have mentioned, straight from Wikipedia. "Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned state-socialism, it is described as "an anarchistic economic vision", and is a form of socialism, since in a parecon the means of production are owned in common." Here is the problem; Anarchism and socialism. There is a reason why every single nation before us who have had socialism and anarchism has failed. First, you are assuming the people can run the economy, without the government. There always needs to be a leader in the society, and there will always be one. That leader will take power away from the people, and your anarchistic economy will never work. Furthermore, how will the people somehow set all restrictions on the economy and make it so a teacher is paid more than a basketball player? There is a reason for capitalism. I don't think that you are right that capitalism is just an ill type of economy. It works because it provides an incentive for people to work harder. The government just needs to restrict capitalism a little more to make it so that moral work is rewarded more than peoples work with bad morals. Getting back to education.... Everything is biased, because people choose what to include and leave out in their teaching. So technically, education is always going to be biased. Participatory planning never works, and that is what is proposed. Even if you could establish a socialist anarchy, the planning would not work out well. When planning for the type of education everyone would have, it would have to be equal for everyone. If we were to have a capitalist education system, the best schools would prevail because of their best educational content and low prices.
The United States Needed to invade Afghanistan.

Iraq is another issue for another debate. I am going to build momentum here with Afghanistan. I believe that it was absolutely necessary for the United States to spend billions of dollars in the Invasion of Afghanistan , to deeply American troops, and finally that all the lives lost in Afghanistan are lost justly so; and I believe the people who believe otherwise are a minority so I would like to see them bring up good points here. Afghanistan was a terrorist haven harboring many of the planners at one point or another that attacked the united States during September eleventh, and even other attacks such as US Embassy's in Africa. The Taliban was an illegitimate Military force that was harboring terrorist repressing the population and ultimately causing us harm. Afghanistan is a battle in our war against terrorism and its a battle the United States needed to fight and needs to continue to fight.
Pancho Villa assassinated FDR and JFK, in a attempt to stop the birth of Bush.

i think they kiled jfk to summn satan and destroy our cuntry i also think that when they killed him and summned satan a mighty hero rose from the ashs and destroyed satan and once and for all and sent him bak to the pits of hel. it is really logical i think it makes sense becaus our cuntry is still fine and satan has not taken over us like for real people its what happend pull the crap out of your eys its what happndhere is my sites that i use for making thishttp://www.staggeringbeauty.com...;
One plus One is Two

I am a little confused about what he is trying to say in his last round, but here goes. He says that any number over the same number is one. I disagree. 0/0= undefined. That is the only exception. Anything over 0 is undefined. He also says that 1+1=2 is the same as 0+0=2. He is not refuting my points about 1+1 not equalling 2. He just says that 0+0 can also equal two. since he has not refuted my points and I have refuted his, I win this debate. Thank you
One plus One is Two

Thank you for kindly stating your opinion of this arguement so kindly. However, my opponent has said that, "Therefore 1+1=2, and I have won this debate. " However, we are here debating that one plus one is two and he just said one plus one is two without any explanation. Also, any number such as one on top of the same number is 1. For example, 1/1 = 1; 978/978=1. It is like this because the number after the / times one is the first number. So if I take the number 0, and put it in the situation it is 0/0=1 Then that means 0=1, and 1+1=2 is also saying 0+0=2.
One plus One is Two

Thank you James. The mathematically proof my opponent has given is true in the sense that any digit of .9s will not equal 2. However, each number, except for .9barred, can have another nine added on to it. If you take one person and you take another person next to him, that is two people. Therefore 1+1=2, and I have won this debate. If you would like to debate that .9barred is equal to one or not, I would gladly do so, but not in this debate. Thank you
One plus One is Two

*Note* This deabte is one the sdcharger and I have trying to start for a long time, but had to start over again and again, because of the mistakes made. People think that one plus one is two. And that is true, but if you think about it, it can be mathematically proved wrong. 1. 0.999... =1, so 0.999...+0.999...=2? That is incorrect because no numbers possible can be added to get a 2 in the digits before that 0999 +0999 ------------- 1998, still not a two in the digits. I will now wait for sdcharger's debate. Thank you for taking your time to read this debate.
high school sould start at 830

Thank you for the 5 word argument and conceding all my arguments....... However sleeping in isnt healthy either, and not going to sleep early enough is bad also.... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... http://www.sleepenough.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.thedailymind.com... http://www.ldaofmichigan.org... If Coffee doesnt do it, maybe eating a big breakfast, chewing gum, 5 hour energy, etc. will help you wake up in the mornings, there are other options than drinking coffee you know.....
high school sould start at 830

1) Not all high schools start at 7:15, mine alone started at 7:40 so for the sake of debate lets just refer to your high school should open at 8:30 and not 7:15 2) Your only arguments is that school should open much later so that you can get more sleep and that if you dont get enough sleep then "u need no point of being in school" So ill address both of these arguments before introducing my own arguments. - 1 - If you move school back an hour and a half it wouldnt solve the problem. If school opens an hour and a half later then it will end an hour and a half later, meaning students will have that much less time to do what they normally do at home. Since students now have lost a large chunk of time to do hw, eat dinner, socialize, etc. they will only end up staying up later to do these things. My point is if you move school hours to a later time period, then that will only make students have to stay up later to do homework and other things, causing them to have to stay up later and wake up just as tired for school as before, thus moving school hour. - 2 - If you are tired and your at school you can still function rather well, you aren't completely brain dead where you cant get anything done just because your tired. People go to work everyday tired and can still do their job pretty well. If your too tired in the morning than drink coffee or have some gum to wake you up you dont have to completely change the system over an issue that can be fixed with a cup of coffee.... As for my own arguments, schools aren't meant to cater to the whims of the student body, they exist for education and to teach millions of youth basic things in different fields of study. If schools were meant to cater to the whims of students, then they wouldnt open until noon, no homework would ever be given out, strict teachers would be fired, English wouldnt be taught, etc. Schools have a fixed goal and that is to teach students, not to make them comfy by satisfying their every whim....
Atheism is the default position for human beings.

You've provided a couple short wikipedia articles describing a couple of obscure concepts. It doesn't change the fact that these words have specific definitions. It doesn't matter what you think it means or what you want it to mean. Language is only ever going to work if you understand that unless we're on the same ground, we can't communicate. If you aren't on the ground of the dictionary, then how am I supposed to debate you? I mean come on. Do I really have to explain how making up your own definition isn't fair? Really? My opponent hasn't provided any compelling evidence to suggest that atheism means more or less than what the dictionary says it means.
Atheism is the default position for human beings.

It wasn't personal? Insulting someone as to age, supposed intelligence, and politics are certainly personal. However as I said, that's not part of this debate. Well, smoking something makes sense. .. Ok, let me be clear. I'm not debating whether religion arises "naturally" later in life or not. We're debating whether someone believes that "from birth. " Obviously, this is a debate about religion, and I don't deny that one bit. Here's some defintions: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... I think you'll find that definitions, in fact, are flexible and tricky things. I hoped I'd made my defintions clear: apparently not. "I understand this coincides with what my opponent believes, but that's irrelevant, because it's my argument. " How would that not be relevant? It was indeed your argument, so that makes it far more relevant even, since you seem to be conceding what I've argued myself. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm not going to include Agnosticism, as I've already linked to Agnostic Atheism, which is what I discussed, rather than full-on Agnostic thinking. I urge you to vote Pro, on both the substance and conduct of the debate (if you wish to include it). I'd say thanks for the debate, but.
Atheism is the default position for human beings.

I haven't resorted to personal attacks, I work on probability. If anything I've said was inaccurate, it wasn't personal. Also, I smoked Salvia and travelled through the world and found out everything there is to know about my opponent. If you believe we're not debating whether or not religion is natural, you are in denial. Let's not work on technicalities here, we're talking about whether or not someone is born with an understanding about gods. If you don't that is sort of circa land of religion, pshhhhhh. Like I said, definitions are not flexible. I gave the actual definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism and showed how a person could not be born with an opinion about gods because they were not aware of them. I understand this coincides with what my opponent believes, but that's irrelevant, because it's my argument. My opponent restated his incorrect definition of atheism and then added his incorrect definition of agnosticism. I cited from four different sources, he cited from what he can remember he's been told.
Atheism is the default position for human beings.

Well...my opponent is off to a good start. Have I decided what words mean? We're both using definitions it seems. Many of yours seem to agree with mine too. My opponent is already resorting to personal attacks in the beginning of the debate. So, well done! I am in fact 24, though it's not an issue either way in my view. I have no idea of why my opponent thinks someone going to high school every day will not have values of substance. As I don't go to high school, this is not where we stand anyway. The stereotypes just keep flying, don't they? I'm not debating that religion is "natural" or "unnatural", two much-abused words. How do we get from me supposedly thinking "religion is the downfall of society" to me "debating to protect the same society" I "supposedly want to see the downfall of"? If my values were consistent, I'd be out there "promoting religion"? Wtf? Again, not a teen, and my politics are not part of the debate. My opponent is presumptuous to act like he'd know what kind of social circle I'm in, or what stage I'm at, what philosophers I read (hint: not Nietzche) etc. I might also point out that Nietzsche was not anarchist, but that's not important. In fact, most of this has not been related to the debate so far. Let's get back to it. Please stop pretending you know what kind of person I am. If you think my definition is merely a technicality, by that standard yours must be as well. I urge you to look up "agnostic atheism" or "weak atheism" if you're interested. As for the entire world working that way...What are you talking about? if "A human is not born an atheist. They are not born believing that G(g)od(s) do(es) not exist(s). It isn't even a concept to them." Um, yes, this is my argument. "Only if it was could they be born atheist." See my definition: Does not believe in god/s, or agnostic atheist, a "weak" atheist. Agnostic: Yes, that was the word I use if you look up above, as in "don't know," along with atheist. Agnostic atheist is thus "I don't know that god/s exist." Not to say that no one "can" know one way or the other. Just we start out this way. "And you can't believe or not believe in something that you aren't aware of the possibility of." If you're unaware of it, you don't believe it. How can you believe in something you're not aware of? I'm sorry, your strange metaphor does not clear things up for me.
Atheism is the default position for human beings.

Here are various definitions from various sources for both atheist/atheism: Merriam-Webster: a. Disbelief in the existence of deity b. The doctrine that there is no deity Dictionary. com: A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: Someone who believes that God or gods do not exist. Google. com Dictionary: An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. Google is so smart, it says "see also: agnostic". That's important, so keep it in mind for later. My opponent is likely a generic, stereotypical ignorant Atheist/Anarchist in his teens coming to terms with the world and not liking the concept of a system that spits out your predefined life. Mind you, he still goes to high school every day, so there's no real substance to his values. Nonetheless, this is where we stand. He probably thinks religion is going to be the downfall of society, so he's debating that religion is unnatural. Which is ironic, because as an anarchist, he's debating to protect the same society that he supposedly wants to see the downfall of. If your values were consistent, you'd be out there promoting religion. Choose a side, you Teenybopper anarchist. My opponent is likely considered an intelligent person in his social circle. Maybe even a genius. But my opponent is at the stage where he's not really thinking about anything. He's likely learning all about Nietzsche or some other person who's good with interesting metaphors. My opponent is the type of person that believes by winning on a technicality (say, the definition of a word), he can change reality. He believes that if we can somehow manage to bend the definition of atheism in this one instance so he can just win this one debate, the entire world can work a different way. A human is not born an atheist. They are not born believing that G(g)od(s) do(es) not exist(s). It isn't even a concept to them. Only if it was could they be born atheist. The word you were probably looking for was Agnostic. Humans aren't born that way either. Agnostic is the belief that you can't prove it one way or the other, but it's still a belief. And you can't believe or not believe in something that you aren't aware of the possibility of. Let's assume there's a giant purple lemon that tastes like happiness that nobody can get to, okay? Now people who believe this giant purple lemon that tastes like happiness that nobody can get to exists are called Winglewangles and people who believe that this giant purple lemon that tastes like happiness that nobody can get to does NOT exist are called Nupsydupsees. Now let's say your sister has a child tomorrow (this is all very relevant), is her baby a Winglewangle or a Nupsydupsee, OR DOES IT NOT MATTER?
Atheism is the default position for human beings.

At birth, humans are unaware the concept of god exists, let alone if actuals god/s exist, along with many other things. We are of course told what other people who raise us believe, usually following their belief as well. I do not deny the natural tendency of humans to desire answers, finding or inventing them, as opinion varies. However, it is my contention that when our life begins no human being is anything beside atheist by definition (atheist in this case is "lacking belief in a god of gods" the "weak" atheist or "agnostic" form of this). Now, when one grows up and begins to question how the world works, then a god concept often arises in answer, or is taught. Whether this is true or not is another question, but at birth I contend the human default position is that of atheism.