BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Self-learning is the best method of being properly educated.

Thank you, dear opponent, for replying to my opinion. First of all, I would like to request you to understand the term "Self-Learning'. It is a compound word. There is a word 'Self' which refers to something relating to ownself. There is no access of any other thing. So, the definition goes there. Self-learning, you have to do it in your own way. There is nobody to interfere. So, Self Learning and Academic Learning are far from different. If Self Learning meant some other thing, also relating to Academic Learning, there would be nothing to debate at all. Because, a students must have to read from his own will. It does not matter how much pressure is imposed on him. So, from that perspective, no debate should be debated. Thus, the definition you gave is not authentic. Let me return to the main share of debate: * In building one's career, academic certificate is nothing but a must. If you want to achieve these academic certificates, you need to take academic education. If you do not that, you won't be able to achieve them. * Furthermore, in this era of science and technology, you have lot many facilities scattering around you. Nothing to wonder that they will attract you in a greater extent. In this context, if no pressure of academic learning is imposed upon you, how can you control yourself? Your mentality will always be either to chat on Facebook, or to play games on computer. Academic learning ensures a calculated pressure to be imposed on you so that you are not greatly addicted to them. Suppose, you have no load of study on you. Then, you might mix up with bad boys, do something unexpected. In that case, who would take the responsibility? Is it your guardian or you? In order to ensure that these things are not happening, Academic Learning lets us with a great chance to build up yourself. * Sometimes, a great willpower to study grows among us that we will study for the whole day or do a lot of thing with it. In most of these cases, we see that our pretended plan is not going successful. We are doing another thing or intended to do another thing instead of study. In this regard, Academic Learning plays a great role. You can't deny the fact. * Now, it is an era of modernisation. Students are being reluctant to study day by day. So, you can't rely upon their will power of Self Learning that they will study themselves. In this viewpoint, you have no option left before you but Academic Learning. So, that's all from now on. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THIS DEBATE.
Self-learning is the best method of being properly educated.

Thank you for expressing your opinion and thought about self-learning and your argument was a splendid one, no doubt.Now I would like to state my argument about self-learning and I will also try to make you understand that, your opinion was a little wrong. Firstly, I want to show your mistake, you said that without academic education one, may get an undisciplined and wrong education. Yes, I agree with your information but I didn't say that, a person who is trying to make himself educated can't go to an academic institution, I meant by my argument that, one can be properly educated by possessing the method of self-learning while going to an academic educational institute like normal students. You may have a misunderstanding about my argument or unclear conception about my thought. I am saying that, one should possess the method my 'so called' self learning besides going to an institution. Because, in this modern era, academic education is a must for all people, rich or poor. And academic learning is helpful and is quite like an assistant to 'self learning'. So, I am trying to explain that I am not avoiding academic education at all. I'll mention some advances of self-learning.
Self-learning is the best method of being properly educated.

Warm welcome, my opponent. Hopefully, this debate is going to be a splendid one. Well, I do not want to lengthen my speech any more and so that, I am directly going to my main arguments. First of all, I would like to resolute the main term of today's topic "Self-Learning" and show my opposing point. * The first term to be defined is "Self-Learning". It indicates the process of one's being educated oneself, without going to any traditional educational institution. Here is my side of oppose. I want to show the logical importance of Academic Learning rather than that of Self-Learning. My logics are stated as follows: 01. Before everything, I would like to inform you a splendid thing. That is, when politicians in the countries of the third world are asked about their educational qualification, their answer goes, "I am self-educated." even, you can say this. Not only you, everybody can take it as a chance. You may ask of what the relevance of this example is. By showing this example, I want to let you know that self-learning enables the learner to learn the way as he wishes. It means, even if you are learning something in the wrong way, there is nobody to overlook you, nobody to observe you. So, the learner does not get himself or herself in some sorts of discipline. Therefore, we should not leave our young learners in a indisciplined manner of education, your so called system, self-learning. 02. There is competition in academic learning which is quite simply inconceivable in regard of self-learning. If you are not in competition, you won't feel the necessity of upgrading yourself, progressing yourself, developing yourself and lastly, advancing yourself. Is that OK for you? If it is, I have no problem. But I will be very happy if you keenly feel the necessity of competition. If you are in that situation, you will have an automatic attitudial change. And not needed to say that you will be greatly benefited. 03. Then, you will get the touch of modern facilities in your institution. Suppose, you need 10 technologies for the purpose of your study. You may have 3, 4 or 5 ones out of the 10. But in your school or college, you may have all of these. So in this respect also, self learning lags far behind than academic learning. 04. You have talked about eagerness for study. Yes, that also can be produced in academic learning. Eventually, academic learning will let you have most of the opportunities. Finally, I do hope I have been able to make you understand the unsubstantiality of today's topic. So, Bye Bye for now. See you later in the next round.
Self-learning is the best method of being properly educated.

But,I am on the side of those people who think that self-learning is the best way to make one a properly educated person because the curiosity for knowing anything drives a person to learn anything with eagerness. If a person doesn't will to learn anything from his own conscience then none can enforce him to learn even other person torchers him to do so. On the other hand the will power will ensure to make him educated by self learning. So, I am debating on the pro side of the topic-Self learning is the best method of being properly educated.
The Secret Order of Police Exposed

FIRST I was surprised to see you did not forfeit the round that was common behavior in previous debates. SECOND [But before doing that, they bragged to me how powerful they were: the modern "conspiracy theory". Before the modern conspiracy theory, the "conspiracy theory" was that rich Jews controlled the world's economy. I wrote a twenty page report and mailed it to the John Birch society, in 1972. Then the John Birch society published what I sent them which became the modern conspiracy theory. The Clockwork Orange treatment I was given, by large doses of LSD, went much further than they expected. Not only did I live the torments of all the people in the films they showed me, I lived the times, when I saw them, of every person and animal I had seen, even in the movies and on TV. After that life I found myself back in time, back in Valley Forge Army Hospital where it happened again, but, I also body switched into the bodies of all I had seen in that life, for the periods of time I had seen them. Then the life after that, I was able to remember some of the mistakes I made the last time around.] Since there were many examples of ridiculous narration, I decided that this one would be best. Not only because we know that those current technologies don't exist, those multiple lives, and how that's not explained, and how that evidence doesn't pertain to the argument, nor the beginning of the paragraph, and how the grammar and sentence structure was incorrect, we can tell that your argument is non existent. More facts should be considered in this process. THIRD Even though you are trolling, people like you are the reason why the majority, if not all, "conspiracy theories" are disregarded as myths, hoaxes, and attempts for attention or whatnot. Many people who want to have decent and intelligent debates and discussions on a website with others have their experience ruined because the the instigator thinks their really clever and/or annoying and are happy when they achieve it. Thanks to Cobalt and others for pointing this out in earlier debates...
The Secret Order of Police Exposed

This is my preliminary argument: FIRST Occam's razor: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." This principle reasons that the best explanation/solution to an event/problem is usually the most simple and logical. [1]Example: Two trees have fallen down during a windy night. Think about these two possible explanations: 1.The wind has blown them down. 2.Two meteorites have each taken one tree down, and after that hit each other and removed any trace of themselves. Even though both are possible, several other unlikely things would also need to happen for the meteorites to have knocked the trees down (they would have to hit each other and also not leave any marks). In addition, meteorites are fairly rare. Since this second explanation needs several assumptions to all be true, it is probably the wrong answer. Occam's razor tells us that the wind blew the trees down, because that is the simplest answer and therefore probably the right one. Therefore, it is most likely that these events happened due to their own, separate, causes, such as a hole in the plot, rather then stream of unlikely coincidences. SECOND I would like to debate this even though I suspect you're trolling. [1]https://simple.wikipedia.org...
The Secret Order of Police Exposed

*Did you see the Jesse Stone (Tom Selleck) movie where his victim was kept alive after being shot up the gut? His victim was being given something similar to the Clockwork Orange treatment. The injury caused enough parasympathetic stimulation to put the victim in perinatal matrix three, where the victim body switched, backward and forward in time, into everyone the victim had seen. A large dose of LSD, and waterboarding do the same thing. The victim also suffered all the sufferings of his victims. Notice, Jesse had a device to keep the victim alive. Cops actually do this when they can get away with it. The Fraternal Order of Police, are part of the cartel of secret lodges, better known as the "Illuminati". They believe in reincarnation. They believe that such treatments can reform their victims for better behavior in future incarnations. This is actually, and illegally, done here in America. The Illuminati believe in the cosmic scheme presented by "The Secret Doctrine" by Helena Blavatsky, and that scheme simplified in "The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception" by Max Heindel. I actually saw a picture of Max Heindel who was among a group of protesters in Washington D.C., in the Twenties, asking to have immigrants from southern Europe exterminated in death camps. The idea of death camps was becoming the fad in the Twenties. Adolph Hitler had the volumes of Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine" in the book shelves next to his bed. We should at least spread this information to alert the American people.
de criminalize marijuana

There are some negatives to smoking marijuana regularly. Physically, lung damage does occur over time after years of smoking. Some sites have said that marijuana is less toxic for your lungs than tobacco; others have said that it is more. There haven't been many tests done because the government restricts funding for research because it is Schedule I. I haven't heard of reports of lung cancer caused by marijuana, but lung damage is a risk. Brain scans of lifetime users show a 12% shrink in the hippocampus of the brain compared to non-users. However, it is also shown that abstinence will reverse the shrinkage without problems. Psychologically, there are risks as well. Marijuana is addictive and many people who smoke experience psychological withdrawal when stopping after using for long periods of time (depression, anger, etc. ). Many people who smoke marijuana over time report a loss of interest in things that were once important to them. Many potheads admit this. Also, smoking heavily for many years causes what pot smokers call "burnout". Many pot smokers are less attentive and less responsive to other people around them. Are these deadly? No. But should a drug be legal simply because it is not? Accidental deaths are also common to people that smoked pot.
de criminalize marijuana

It has so many well uses for it, and most people who have never tried it don't understand how it truthfully is, It is not addicting one but, its proven that coffee is more addicting then it. I go weeks at a time without a hit, i take it as i please, i never get the feeling of needing it. But don't get me wrong i am compleatly against other HARD drugs like meth crack ect. But i have been smoking cannabis since i was 14 and I never got less then a B went to Rider and am now making 6 figures at 28. Witch brings me to another theory about pot smoking witch is the stepping stone theory, meaning if you try pot your bown to want to take the next step to the hard drugs, witch is something compleatly untrue, i never even seen some of these hard drugs before, and neither have any of my friends that also smoke, not once in my life have i ever wanted to try any hard drugs and in high school the pot smokers frowned apon the crack heads, we stayed away from them, 1 in every 100 pot smokers do other drugs (from the union).
Anarchy wont' fail

2. so you're saying government authority wrong. well in the U.S. it's worked for 100s of years and hasn't failed yet 3. No, absolute power is easy to corrupt 4. God also says in the Bible that people must be organized and settle for roming can leed to ruin. 5. I never said anything on kings. Kings are a monarchy and like a said before absolute power corrupts absoultely. a Democracy isn't a monarchy 6. Bush agruement. War is part of everyday life. We went to Iraq to drive out Husan and Al-Quida. 7. somolia is a young country and can easily be toppled by some threat.
Anarchy wont' fail

1. absence of government a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority No government means no laws. Hobbes describes humanity as terrible people that need to be controled. Also with no government means coos/ armys that will topal a countries regiem. We will be conquered by Canada. http://www.youtube.com... But lets get more serrious we won't get conquered by the Canadians. it would be Russia, China, Irsael, Pakistan, or India. 2. U.S. worldpower won't fall to anarchy. U.S. is currently a superpower and most likely not fall to anarchy. why powerful military and laws that keep the people in check
Anarchy wont' fail

I will be arguing for Anarchy defined as a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority I thank you for the opportunity to debate. In response to the question left by the observer. Would the Pro need to show that the geographical location formerly known as the U.S. would function better in the moral sense or that the services traditionally provided by the government would be more efficiently provided under anarchy? I think we should consider both when examining the if Anarchy will fail. So an amendment may read anarchy won't fail on a moral or services basis.
Evolution vs Creationism

You state that evolution is a fact, yet the only fact about evolution is the fact that it remains a theory for a variety of reasons. The theory of evolution has many flaws, first in order for this theory to be accurate it would require a sequence of events that are not only highly improbable but virtually impossible. There is no empirical evidence suggesting that inanimate matter came into existence and developed into highly complex organisms. There is also no evidence to support the billions of transitional records required to support how these inanimate blobs of atoms became fully evolved, living, breathing, human beings. The theory of evolution begins after the creation of the Earth, which makes this theory even more complex and irrational. In order for the Earth to come into existence to support these blobs that formed into highly complex living beings, the Big Bang had to occur. The Big Bang had to defy the laws of thermodynamics in that it required an enormous force of energy to take place. Remember thermodynamics states that "energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed" so what was required to support all life had to have been "is, was and always will be."
Evolution vs Creationism

I am repeating key points. First, you ask for me to state why I believe in creationism, then you say "You can't use the Bible" well I wasn't aware of the fact that you decide how someone should think, or what points they are allowed to cover. I wasn't always a Christian. I became a Christian in adulthood because it offers me hope and love. I never found this anywhere else and it means a great deal to me. Why does it enrage you so much that some people choose to believe in a creator? I don't understand this concept. You have not offered me any substantial proof, that could even remotely make me believe in the evolution conspiracy. I asked you if you could prove your existence without testimony, using science and science alone. You cannot even prove you exist. In the end what does it matter? One of us is right, either it came to be from nothing, that created something, which created everything by chance, or it came to be by intelligent design, something far beyond our capability of knowledge. You dismiss every ounce of data that exists proving that a creation theory is highly plausible and significantly probable. Atheists tend to be just as shallow thinking and narrow minded as many Christians. I can understand if you were well studied in other subjects outside of science, but that doesn't appear to be the case. You say you would believe if enough evidence was presented. I find it rather lazy on your part that you do not study outside the box you have put yourself in. You dismiss everything and expect that a person could present literally thousands of pages worth of data proving the existence of a creator on a 5 session debate forum. Does that sound logical? I would suggest that you study outside of science, perhaps you will find an exciting new world of history and geography. I find that many atheists just puppet what other atheist say, the vast majority do not think for themselves. I find this to be a rather sad life. I find that many are knowlegable when it comes to science, but most know very little outside of that, or shall I say outside of what they have absorbed from other big name atheists like Dawkins.
Windows 8 Should be Only For Tablets.

RebuttalTablet market statisticsThere are simply not enough tablet users for Microsoft to release an entire new updated operating system just for tablets. Microsoft does not even have the edge on tablets; the most dominant tablet is the iPad, with a staggering 97.2% of all US Tablet traffic. [1]Tablets and computersEven if Microsoft had that 97.2%, there are still more PC users than tablet users, and the tablet is likely not going to take over the conventional desktop computer or laptop. [2] ConclusionIn short, it would be illogical for Microsoft to restrict a new operating system just for tablets; the numbers just aren't in your favor. Conventional computers are still more popular than tablets, and even if tablets were the majority, Microsoft definitely doesn't have the largest market share. Sources1. . http://www.dailytech.com...;2. . http://www.pcmag.com...;
Windows 8 Should be Only For Tablets.

" sales are going to cannibalise consumer desktop and notebook sales, because consumers want to consume content more than they want to create it with a keyboard and mouse." Says Reger while also Microsoft saying they will start developing more into Tablet type of hardware because the consumers are over taken. Sources: www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/02/reger_tablets_killing_consumer_pcs/
Religious Schools Should Be Banned

Faith schools in England are academically "little or no better than any other schools", and pushing for their expansion is unlikely to boost social mobility, an education think tank has warned. Recent government reports have hailed faith schools as some of the best performing and most desirable schools in the country. But new analysis published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) suggests this may be biased, since faith schools take on a lower proportion of the poorest and most disadvantaged pupils (12.1 per cent at Key stage 2 compared to 18 per cent in non-faith schools). Religious segregation in faith schools 'dreadful' says catholic chief Catholic education officials have disregarded the report, however, arguing that the research is based on incorrect figures and “bears no resemblance” to their schools. The EPI report, entitled Faith Schools, Pupil Performance and Social Selection, follows new government proposals to allow new faith schools to recruit more than half of their pupils on religious grounds – lifting the current cap of 50 per cent. Faith schools in England are academically "little or no better than any other schools", and pushing for their expansion is unlikely to boost social mobility, an education think tank has warned. Recent government reports have hailed faith schools as some of the best performing and most desirable schools in the country. But new analysis published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) suggests this may be biased, since faith schools take on a lower proportion of the poorest and most disadvantaged pupils (12.1 per cent at Key stage 2 compared to 18 per cent in non-faith schools). READ MORE Religious segregation in faith schools 'dreadful' says catholic chief Catholic education officials have disregarded the report, however, arguing that the research is based on incorrect figures and “bears no resemblance” to their schools. The EPI report, entitled Faith Schools, Pupil Performance and Social Selection, follows new government proposals to allow new faith schools to recruit more than half of their pupils on religious grounds – lifting the current cap of 50 per cent.
The Confederate Flag is not racist!

I can see where you come at with the whole "The confederate flag is not racist, it is southern pride" thing, but the confederate flag stands for more things than racism. Even though racism is one thing, I would like to point out that it does in fact stand for brotherhood in the south. The southerners flew the flag during the civil war so they could just have a flag. It was never official. But if the confederate flag does NOT stand for racism what so ever, than explain why every single slave plantation flew one? Even if they weren't in the war, they still did. I have also seen pictures of people holding a confederate flag next to their Nazi flag many times before. In fact, its all I can find. So to say whether or not it stands for racism is redundant. because it does. Just like how Pepe the Frog stands for hate, or an eggplant is slang for a penis. Its not about the history of what it once was, it is about the history of what it is now. Thank you.