BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
paying to go to college freash out of school

you cannot get a scholership for the colleges down here. and as for funding well the goverment can pay for childeren to go to school so why can't they pay for say 16-19 for a free college course then? these teenagers cannot apply for these sort of things trust me i have tried. and you want reason why they should be entilted to a free college course? 1) becuase it gives them a chance at what they want to do without worrying about the cost 2)becuase half of them do not have money 3)besucase its just not right that you should have to pay for it all 4)not only do you have to pay for the fees you have to pay fopr trips theres 4 off the top of my head
paying to go to college freash out of school

You seemed confused. Everyone should have to pay for there education. The government can help but you should be responsible for paying your own education. You are arguing that kids should not pay for their education. I have to argue why they do, and how to do it. The reason why they should pay for their own education is b/c no one should be responsible for another's education. Where would you suggest getting the money to fund your proposal? You have not come up with points to prove why kids should be "entitled" to a free education. (The life one is dealt is not an excuse) You cannot afford to cover everyone going to college. And there're many different ways to get college paid for. I have provided some. http://www.scholarship-search.org.uk...
paying to go to college freash out of school

the UK is differn't from the USA for a start we do not have elementry school jr high and high school we have primary school and secondry school then some people choose to go to college. with the resession this country is in i think that it is out of order that we should have to pay for it. the goverment want as meny people as they can to take college courses as it is advertised of the tv (eg learndirect) so if they want this surly they could work out the income and realise that some people whould be entitled to a free course. my opponant is not making it clear that we should HAVE to pay for our courses purly becuase we shouldn't have to if you are on low income and have just come stright out of secondry school you should NOT have to pay and are entitled to a free course
paying to go to college freash out of school

as my oppoant has made it clear yes my argument is blurry, this is because the education system in america is differant than from the one in england. over here if you live in a certain area you go to the college closer to you becuase you still have to go home at the end of the day. now it all depends on what course you take. take mine. i do hairdressing; ï¿½250 for my kit ï¿½40 for my uniform ï¿½10 for my trousers ï¿½4 for my shoes ï¿½50 enrolment fees on top of other things such as if we have a school trip we have tp pay for this too. my perents are on low income and find it difficult to keep up. we applied for a student grant and got ï¿½200 which doesn't cover the cost of my kit. i get ï¿½30 a week EMA which has to pay for my lunch and upkeep of my kit.
paying to go to college freash out of school

My opponent's argument is blurry but I will argue how a person could pay for college and why it is a good thing. Just a little insight into my life, I did not go to college out high school. I was ignorant to my options. That is the key. There are options! You should never believe that education should be free or at the hands of tax dollars, Americans cannot afford it. If you are poor, get a pell grant, and a student loan. Pick a college that you know you can afford. You should be held accountable to pay for college out of high school; you can pay for it with the two I mentioned. You may have to pay it back when you graduate but in theory you are still paying the university right out of high school. And if you wait, you will age. I am 25 now and will not get done with Law school till I am 30. I have friends that are 25 and making money already. You do not realize it till you are older and look back at what you could have done. Look guys, this is a weird debate but I take it as an opportunity to share. My opponent's argument is cloudy but mine is here on paper. http://www2.ed.gov... http://studentaid.ed.gov...
paying to go to college freash out of school

why should students freah out of school pay to go to college, when the goverment know that they haven't been working and cannot afford it, yes we know that people say well your perents can afford it but what if your perents can't?. does this mean becuase you or your perents can't afford it that means you cannot have a well paying job all beacse of your finacial income?. it just means that the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer
Is gay marriage ok

I read the comments and I define "ok" as morally acceptable and should be legal. I will now present my arguments: P1) Unjust bigotry: People are discriminated against for their sexuality, even to the point of lynching [1]. In the workplace, some gay employees will be paid less, fired, or not hired in the first place do to these prejudices [2]. The legalization and normalization of gay marriage would help with this issue greatly. P2) Financial benefits: By the law, marriages are both a civil and financial union, denying gay people this right will hurt their income and assets. This could cause debt to rise or poorer credit. [3] P3) Tax benefits: Gay unions could bring in many millions of dollars tax revenue year round [4a]. This is proven by the NYC city income increase with gay marriage [4b]. P4) Fairness: It is not at all fair if the LGBT community cannot marry but the heterosexual community cannot. P5) It is not a choice: If it were a choice no one would be gay. Not because it is wrong, because of the discrimination. P6) Who is it hurting: If you are right, being gay is not moral and gays will go to hell, (if that is in fact what you believe) they are already going to hell and it doesn't matter if they can get married lawfully. P7) Government: The USA has no official religion, its ideals of impartiality should reflect that. I will now rebut possible arguments by my opponent: R1) Argument rebutted, It is agains the bible: specifically it is against Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, If we choose to follow Leviticus, polyester should also be illegal, Leviticus 19:19 says not to mix fabrics. R2) Argument rebutted, God hates gays: John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.", if this is true god does not hate gays. If god is love and hates gays he is the opposite of himself, which is impossible. R3) Argument rebutted, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve: I prey to god you don't use this argument, it is the N-word for LGBT people. R3) Argument rebutted, Only use the word "marriage" for straight unions, use the term "Civil Union" for LGBT unions: So, separate but equal. That turned out great!!! (sarcasm) I will now pose questions to my opponent: Q1) if god hates gays, why does he do so? Q2) What harm does it do? Q3) If god hates gays, why do they exist [1] http://www.wsws.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://money.howstuffworks.com... (read all slides) [4a] http://www-personal.umich.edu... [4b] http://money.cnn.com...
The fable of Noah's Ark is fiction.

From one newcomer to another, I look forward to the challenge. Two points I'd like to clear up before we begin:1. As it's impossible to definitively prove whether the Biblical flood narrative did happen, I will instead venture to prove that it could have happened. "Could," in this case, meaning "plausible within reason." I think that's fair enough.2. I do, in fact, happen to believe that the supernatural elements in the story are valid. However, I recognize that "because God" is not a very good argument unless we have previously established whether "God" exists (which is a debate for another time). Therefore, I'll do my best to offer more "reasonable" alternatives to the supernatural explanations and cite my sources where applicable. I will likely lose the debate solely on this point (agreeing to disagree and all that), but I could use the mental exercise nonetheless.First argument to you, Pro.
Mac is more user friendly and more efficient than a PC

You have misunderstood my argument. I'm quite certain that Apple has put functions on the Mac similar to copy, paste, and cut. My point is that if 90% of computer users already use "A", and "B" is not intuitive, then by definition "B" cannot be easier than "A". In other words, while Mac may be easier for an infant on an island to learn than a PC, for the rest of us, it's no more user friendly than a flying a plane. Regarding "efficiency," the second part of the debate topic, you have provided no evidence to support this claim. For something to be more efficient, it must get the job done faster than the alternative option(s). If we took 100 random people off of the street and asked them to list all of their friends in a word processor, and all of their phone numbers in a spreadsheet, 90% wouldn't be able to do so on a Mac, but could do it on a PC. It stands to reason that Mac is in fact only more efficient in a bubble. I know you Mac loyalists would like to live in a bubble, but we just can't ignore the real world. The real indicator that Mac is not easier or more efficient is the marketplace. Don't get me wrong, I love the Apple ads that stroke Steve Job's ego by comparing the cool geeky kid with the overweight nerd. They are an obvious reference to the age old fight between Jobs and Gates. However, the marketplace tells us that the PC is the preferred product, not Mac.
Mac is more user friendly and more efficient than a PC

Unfortuantely you left the door wide open on your argument... There is an "Undo" shortuct but instead of CTRL button, there is the "Apple" button (yes it has an apple on it). This replaces the CTRL button so you can "Undo", "Cut", "Copy" etc. The back button on the mouse depends on the type of mouse you have, and I don't have a mouse with the back button option simply because I have not become accustomed to using it. If I were used to using it, you can simply plug in ANY mouse with a back button and VOILA (sp??) you can navigate backwards like PC's did with Windows Vista (I'm patting myself on the back for that comment!!) What's the difference if it is called Volume Limit or Volume? Why live within the confines of what society deems the "proper labels?" Lastly, by no means am I PC (politically correct), therefore I wouldn't get the endorsement from Steve Jobs because I am not a tree hugger...
Mac is more user friendly and more efficient than a PC

I frequently hear the same arguments regarding Mac versus PC. Arguments like, "Mac's are so easy," and "PC's are so technical." I find myself wondering how many of the people making these false claims are receiving endorsements directly from Steve Jobs. Conspiracy theories aside, there are several reasons why in fact Mac is not more user friendly than PC. The first and most obvious reason, there's no CTRL-Z. How the heck can a PC user migrating to Mac survive without the "Undo" shortcut? Don't you know how many typos we PC dorks make? While using my brother's (poor misguided sole who thinks that being different is better) Mac I also found there's no CTRL-Z, CTRL-V, and no back button on the mouse. If 90% of the computer users use PC's (1), and we can't easily migrate to Mac, then by definition doesn't that mean that Mac is less user friendly? Other Apple products are just as difficult to use. Apparently the developers of iPod decided against having an option called "volume". No, they have to name it "Volume Limit". In the words of the Sheppard, "what the flock?" I guess the point is, that if you're not thinking logically, or even sanely, then Mac is the right computer for you. (1) http://macdailynews.com...
Mac is more user friendly and more efficient than a PC

I used a PC for about 15 years and 2 years ago, I changed to a Mac. This was a brilliant decision on my part. I recently purchased a PC for my mom and Windows has become so complicated and confusing that I am tempted to return it and get her a Mac (this coming from someone who knew his way around Windows very well). Aside from the obvious luxuries of being able to just plug in my iPod and iPhone, Mac recognizes any device I plug into it and doesn't geive me headaches like a PC did, having to download drivers, etc. constantly. Mac allows me to keep all my files, pictures and music organized... and yes, Apple created iTunes which is just another reason why Mac's are better, especially because you can download the program onto a PC and it is very simple to use...
The Japanese educational system is superior to the U.S's.

Before I start my argument I'm going to start by stating that Japan generally ranks higher then the U.S. in practically every academic way as shown by these studies from many different sources http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.infoplease.com... http://www.geographic.org... By law in Japan you have to go to elementary school(6 years) and junior high(3 years). Instead of making it so that you have to go to school until you're 18, they just require this basic education. But, more then 90% of Japanese students go to high school. (53.7% complete college) And not only that, most high school require you to take a entrance exam. Japan doing this I personally consider to be good. It forces children to stay challenged. And the fact that they make requirements to get somewhere would force children to study more and be involved with their work. It obviously works for them to be ranked so high. Most Japanese student want to be successful and these exams promote intense studying. The Japanese school also generally have more then 60 more days of school a year then that of the U.S., although they also format it so that you have three terms, and three breaks, where the U.S. just has one(Separated into quarters and trimesters), and one break, summer vacation. (Although I must mention that Japan generally has more field trips, and cultural events. So not all of these extra 60 days are used academically) Another pleasurable thing about Japan, unlike the U.S. They have a national curriculum.(U.S. has statewide) Since it's national, everyone get equal education. The U.S. Hasn't been making their educational system work well enough.
The Japanese educational system is superior to the U.S's.

Second round will be stating your position, your opinions, and your arguments. The next three are casually played out. Make your disputes and continue on. No spamming, trolling, or general poor behavior. I'll be taking the 'Pro' side of this debate, being that I find the Japanese educational system to work much better then the U. S. 's. I'm kinda new to this site. I'm young but I like formalities and I hope to do well here. Good luck!
English should be the official Language of America

Hello Imapanicbomb- When I read my argument, I relized that my argument wasn't that "clear". I will try to clear it up now. We need to make English the official language of America. We speak it in Congress, courthouses, national parks, and Presidential speeches. It is spoken in almost every store business, etc. You get my point. Every where English is spoken, even on government land. So why isn't it our national language? "In reality, establishing an official language would hardly compliment a compassionate attitude of tolerance. It would, most likely, alienate many hard working americans who are unable to proficiently speak the English language, and would probably result in a loss of cultural identity in those whose first language is other than English"- Imp panic If you moved to America you should learn English. In the early 20th century, every immargrant (all legal) learned English and worked hard, and raised the American flag. Now we have all the immigrants (some illegal) who refuse to speak english and still raise the flag that they're from. I have no problem them flying their home flag, but they should raise the American flag a little higher than the other flag, because they want to be citizens of our country. How is this relevant? You will get a job by knowing english, rather than someone who is too lazy to learn english. By making them learn english they will work hard, a lot of people now try to make it off on drugs and social security checks (that's another debate). "Surely, the sole fact that a law exists is no reason to support it. That's like saying that slavery should have spread to the Union states, simply because it already existed in the south. Absurd" -Imapanic How can you can compare slavery to learning english? No one is dying. No one is being treated like cattle. Absurd. I hope this is a little clearer why we should use english.
English should be the official Language of America

Hello, this is my first debate so I apologize if I misunderstand the format. I'll take it point by point. 1 You said: 215 million Americans speak English, the only other language that more than 2 million people speak is Spanish. So, there what is there to lose. The serious flaws I see here are the following two assumptions: A) Because so many people speak English, we wouldn't "lose" anything by declaring a national language. In reality, establishing an official language would hardly compliment a compassionate attitude of tolerance. It would, most likely, alienate many hard working americans who are unable to proficiently speak the English language, and would probably result in a loss of cultural identity in those whose first language is other than English. B) "Having nothing to lose" is a valid reason for action. It simply is not. Even if it were true that we would have nothing to lose, that is not proof that we should act. This is similar to saying that, since I wouldn't lose anything by walking into my living room and sitting down, i OUGHT to perform said action. "Having nothing to lose" does not imply that we "Ought" to do something. 2 You said: There are already 26 states where English is the sole official language. Also, 4 more has English and another language as its official language. There will be more to come too. Surely, the sole fact that a law exists is no reason to support it. That's like saying that slavery should have spread to the Union states, simply because it already existed in the south. Absurd. Also, citing 4 states as having an official language in addition to English hurts your cause, if it does anything. It implies that making English the official language would not be sufficient. 3 You said: States that have English as the language, don't only speak english. When it regards safety, public health, tourism, learning foreign languages, etc., you are allowed to speak whatever language you wants. Also, state authorities speak what ever they want. Questions of the relevancy of the second sentence aside, I'd like to know exactly where you would like this official language of English to be spoken. It seems that you've given plenty of examples of where it would not be used but have yet to tell us what exactly an "official language" would entail. Please explain in your response. 4 Most immigrants think that everyone should learn English if they live here. By learning English, they will have a better chance at getting jobs than another immigrant who doesn't know English. I don't know where your information is coming from, but the first sentence here is irrelevant. The second states what is already the case: the fact that so many people speak English, as you mentioned, means that non-English speakers have less of a chance at employment. This is true now, without English being the official language. Conclusion: Please clarify exactly why English should be our official language.
English should be the official Language of America

Hello Potential debaters: I think that the US should make English the official language of the US. It is the most widely spoken language in America. 1) 215 million Americans speak English, the only other language that more than 2 million people speak is Spanish. So, there what is there to lose. 2) There are already 26 states where English is the sole official language. Also, 4 more has English and another language as its official language. There will be more to come too. 3) States that have English as the language, don't only speak english. When it regards safety, public health, tourism, learning foreign languages, etc., you are allowed to speak what ever language you wants. Also, state authorities speak what ever they want. 4) Most immigrants think that everyone should learn English if they live here. By learning English, they will have a better chance at getting jobs than another immigrant who doesn't know English. Check out http://www.proenglish.org... for more info.
English should be the official Language of America

imapanicbomb: This has been an intresting debate, and I think one of my poorest debates, but I have one more chance to make it good. Why should we should we have English as a natonal language? Well, by having a national language there will be one main effect. It will lower taxes. How will it lower taxes? Well, we can now deny people of social security, because they can't get a job due to only speaking Spanish. Heres how it would work: In the state of New Mexico, there are 5,000 people who get unaployment pay from the state. They get $10,000 annualy. They can't get a job, because they can't speak english, and they have no inntentions of learning. Now, they have to pay $50,000,000 to people who are just lazy to learn anything. If the english becomes the official language, they won't have to pay these people, because they don't know the official language, which is the reason they can't get a job. That's $50,000,000 (probably more) the citizens don't have to pay, or will but used to improve school, parks, etc. "What does making English our official language entail? What advantages would this actually create for us?"- Impanic I beilve these were the same questions as why should we..., just diffrent wording. "How does it change our country?"-Impanic Well, that's a tough question. First off, it'll change our country for the better. When tourist come to the country, they'll know what language to speak. Also, it will put more emphisis on WE in the United States.