BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Robots can replace high school teachers

The Contender suggests that robots cannot perform “advanced” tasks that humans can perform, such as grading an essay. However, humans grade essays based on certain criteria, such as if the evidence supports an argument. Meet Watson, a computer developed by IBM that can beat humans in Jeopardy. This means that computers can read and understand human speech, therefore, robots similar to it can understand if two sentences or ideas are related. Technology has also advanced in a way that they can read documents. Let’s take a look at Grammarly. Grammarly can read online text, eliminating the problem of reading. Grammarly can even correct grammar and check for plagiarism (Grammarly). The Contender implies technology cannot measure student’s performance but did not provide an instance as to when robots cannot measure student's performance. Robots can measure the 90-degree angle required for push-ups. Robots can count student’s mile time. So what aspect of physical education can’t robots do? The Contender proposes that robots cost about 125K USD, which is much too expensive. This is far from the truth. Baxter, a robot that can perform any task done in front of it. This sounds like super advanced technology to some. How much does this cost? 22K USD (HowStuffWorks). This is less than a fifth of what the contender suggests. The 22K USD will only become cheaper from there, as I mentioned in the previous argument. Materials have not only become cheaper, but knowledge has become more easily accessed, so simpler technology will be pushed aside if set at a high price. This means that technology providers will have to make their objects cheaper for them to be bought. Sources:Grammarly - grammarly.comHowStuffWorks - https://science.howstuffworks.com...
Robots can replace high school teachers

The Pro stated in response to a previous comment of mine that "Technology can explain things to students as well as people can, even with multiple methods of teaching." He then went on to explain this statement by listing one application that provides answers and the steps to get them for math equations. While technology possibly could provide students with a mediocre(at best) explanation and/or math lesson, technology couldn't do many other things necessary in schools, such as grade a student's essay or teach P.E. and grade their performance. The Pro also said that "Technology cannot inspire students, but that is not why teachers exist." The Pro went on to say that "Teachers exist for teaching", clearly meaning that the sole purpose of a teacher is to teach others. This is absolutely false. The role of a teacher has many facets. Not only are they meant to teach students, but they are also there to be a mentor to the students, provide counseling, be a role model, along with many other things that they are meant to do that robots clearly cannot provide. The Pro went on to state "The cost of technology is rapidly decreasing", in response to my argument that robots cost an extremely large amount of money. In this same paragraph the Pro admitted that "materials are becoming slightly cheaper", slightly being the keyword here. A slight change in the costs of technology, especially the kind needed to produce a robot teacher, will have almost no effect on the total price. In order to develop a robot that would be even remotely capable of teaching students what they need to learn, many completely new parts would need to be developed, customized, and produced. It is also important to note that industrial robots cost around $100,000 to $150,000, and they usually have only one very simple purpose. To even attempt to create a robot that could teach students would cost much higher, as the skills needed to correctly perform the job of teaching the next generation are much more complex than those needed for a simple assembly line job. Sources: https://www.thoughtco.com... https://www.robots.com... http://www.ascd.org...
Robots can replace high school teachers

This is a very large topic to cover, but I am up for it. Because this is so large a topic and I have a small deadline, I shall only briefly cover each explanation.1a) Technology can explain things to students as well as people can, even with multiple methods of teaching. Applications such as Photomath can give students answers with explanations (Photomath). If students want a formula, the robot can direct it to a page in the book, or have human-created answers to specific questions if the questions are common.1b) Technology cannot inspire students, but that is not why teachers exist. Teachers exist for teaching. It is mostly the principal’s job to provide inspiration in a school if anyone is supposed to do so at all.2) The cost of technology is rapidly decreasing. The iPhone 1, when it came out, cost about $600, but it decreased to $400 (Imore). This is because materials are becoming slightly cheaper and they are easier to replicate. The iPhone logic can apply to all technology.3) This argument ties in with argument #1.Sources:Photomath - https://photomath.net...Imore - https://www.imore.com...
Robots can replace high school teachers

Here are my claims along with some supporting evidence for them: 1 ~ Robots cannot provide the assistance that a teacher can. Teachers are able to explain things clearly to students, provide multiple methods of teaching, and inspire students, whereas robots cannot provide these same things or things even similar to them. 2 ~ Robots are extremely expensive to upkeep. Not only do they cost an extremely large amount of money(on average, the minimum cost to build a robot is around $100,000, and that amount can grow greatly depending on the parts needed), but they also cost around $20,000 to $50,000 to upkeep annually. By contrast, the average teacher is paid around $45,000. 3 ~ Teachers are able to do much more than a robot ever could. Teachers are able to provide emotional support, guidance and counseling, maintain a classroom, and do much more. Teachers are also able to keep order in a classroom with their presence, but robot teachers would have no emotional nor physical power to maintain an orderly and proper classroom. With this I submit my 3 initial arguments, along with some evidence to support them. I hope to hear from the Pro soon. Sources: https://www.recode.net... https://www.payscale.com... https://www.linkedin.com... https://www.robots.com...
Robots can replace high school teachers

In this round, should anyone need a reminder, the contender and I shall list evidence to support our answer.1) Robots will be preferable to high school teachers for principals. Robots do not complain, do not need lunch breaks, or need a high pay in the long run. Robots do not take sick days, either.2) Robots will be capable of anything a high school teacher is capable of. Robots can report suspicious activity, answer questions, and direct students to proper locations in the classroomI have only made two claims, but these are claims with very much weight.I look forward to the contender’s response.
Mexican American Border Wall

First things first, I can't read and evaluate any of your links. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, or if it's on your end, but the first link just sends me to youtube.com. No specific video, just youtube. So unless you are suggesting that cat videos and life hacks are part of your argument, I think I did something wrong. Anyway, let's digress onto argumentation. If you make the concession that the idea of a wall is a bit extreme, then we're done. I've already won. If you don"t want a wall and don"t think we should build one, I"ve already won on merits. Along with that, you completely ignored my argument about the ethics and morals of erecting such a construction and purely focused on finance. Those arguments still remain unanswered. What is the purpose of a wall? Typically to keep dangerous people out. Closing borders is for the sake of safety, as many parts of Europe have done in response to the growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism. We aren't in any real danger from the Hispanic population. Before September 11, 2001, we had open borders with Mexico and Canada. After the attacks, we stopped having open borders in fear of further Islamic extremism. When's the last time anyone heard of ISIS or such coming from Mexico? The only thing close to that would be Hezbollah (funny enough they have their own amusement parks), had already entered the United States sometime before 2005. What I find the most ironic about this situation, is that time after time, Trump has decried that Mexico will pay for it. Of course, that is a lie. With the 20% import tax on goods from Mexico, we are now the ones paying for it. The plan proposed by RoccoLopardo, my opponent, is a much better plan, financially and logistically speaking, though it really isn"t even a wall. But as with most moral issues, the mere fact that we can do something has no measure on if we should do something. Is it physically possible to kill someone? Yes! Should you? Probably not! Though I"m not comparing the two in moral terms, the fact that we could financially support the wall (ignoring the 20 trillion dollar national deficit) doesn"t mean that we should. Funny enough, more Mexicans are leaving than coming to the US, so a wall would help keep people in. http://www.politifact.com... http://www.pewhispanic.org...
Mexican American Border Wall

I believe that the Mexican-American Border Wall, also known as merely, the wall would be demonstrably inefficient at it's intended purpose, for according to Pew Research Center, roughly half of all illegal immigrants came to the United States legally via the usage of Visas and Border Crossing Cards. The problem of the wall as proposed by President Donald J. Trump could easily be circumvented by anyone who really set their mind to it. Of course, as we saw from the former escape of El Chapo, Hispanics are really good at building tunnels, and they already use them for the purpose of drugs, human trafficking and such. Hell, even some have electricity. Nevermind that, there's still the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. And the wall has been estimated to cost anywhere from 15 billion to 25 billion(Or about half the price for free college for everyone), not including any of the land. Never mind the fact that there a million fewer Mexicans now in 2017 than compared to 2007 Now one might ask, in spite all of this, will this give native-born Americans( who are descended from immigrants anyway) be more likely to have a job? The short answer is no. Due to guest worker programs and such, 1.6 million entries by legal immigrants and 3.9 million by temporary workers from Mexico have occurred in the last 10 years. Entirely legally. This is primarily for farming jobs that Americans typically won't do. If immigrants are no longer allowed, then farmers will be in quite a pickle and will crash the market. If immigrants are allowed to continue working in the US, and the wall is built, the wall still won't stop them. They can merely stay in the country Besides the enormous cost of said border wall and inefficiency, one must ask is this morally acceptable. E pluribus unum, out of many, one. The original unofficial motto of the U. S. before it was changed to in "God we trust" in 1956. The US was formed almost entirely by those not indigenous. It is the land of immigrants, and we should at the very least, stay in our roots. Is it moral to turn away those in need? To not help the less fortunate? Continuing on the moral front, one can clearly see that the vast majority of the States is Christian. And as the whole border wall idea is strongly supported by one the most religious parties, the GOP. One might ask what Jesus would have thought. How about Love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 12:31)? How about loving others(John 13:34-35)? Admittedly, not all of this country is Christian, not even I am. But one must ask if one is, what would Jesus do? Take the nativity, there was a family in need and a pregnant woman looking for someplace to have a baby, but there was no room in the inn. The story didn't"t praise those that said no. The story praised those who said this may be a little inconvenient, this may be a little awkward, but otherwise found a way to help those in need. . http://www.newsweek.com... . http://www.pewhispanic.org... . http://money.cnn.com... 1. First round is acceptance and opening arguments 2. Don't forfeit 3.
Predestination Unto Salvation

Yes one can resist being drawn to something. An example would be a night before a test. I might be drawn to hang out with my friends and play xbox but instead I resist and study. "bieng confident of this very thing, the He who has begun a good work in you WILL COMPLETE IT until the day of Jesus Christ." You still have to chose to begin God's work though. Personaly I think it ridiculous to say that something that is just is not also fair. How is it either just or fair to condem or save someone he instant they are born, without them having done anything to deserve their judgement.
Predestination Unto Salvation

"Much of the Bible is based on how you interpret it." Yes, people interprate the Bible differantly, but the bibl is certainly not left open to interprate how you want it. If it was, then God would be partial, taking away His unchanging nature. Sinc this is the case, There MUST be a definate way to interprate the Bible, meaning that one of us is wrong. "'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him.' I still interpret that as free will, because you can be drawn to something and still not do it. Again, it's free will, in the end you choose to do it." Can one resist being drawn? No. If resistance were possible, one could only resist AFTER he was drawn. If the someone, then He has begun a good work in them according to the Bible, and in Philippians Paul makes it claer that God will complete every goos work He starts. Philippians 1:6--- "bieng confident of this very thing, the He who has begun a good work in you WILL COMPLETE IT until the day of Jesus Christ." What is completion? Completion is salvation. What else could it be? He will comlete it until the day of Jesus Christ, which is the day we go to be with God forever. It is clear, then, that refusing Godafter He starts drawing you is also not possible, because in drawing you, he has started a good work; a good work which He promised He would complete. "As for you last verse [Jude], the difference between pottery and humans is that humans are an intelligent life form who are capable of making their own choices and are held responsible for those choices.1" The differance between potery and humans is that one is clay and one is flesh. It's a metaphor. The point is not the clay being formed, but the potter forming the clay. Can a lump of clay refuse to be made into a vase? Obviously not. Can a finite human refuse to be called by an omnipotent, omniscient God? Obviously not. Yes, God gave us free will, but not free will unto salvation. Think of it as God drafting people. Is he going to dictate how they fight while they are on the battlefield? He will give them a set of morals to follow, but will not dictate exactly how they fight. Can the soldiers resist the draft? Nope. God calls who He wants to call, and all those He does not call don't deserve to be called. The fact of the matter is, NO ONE deserves to be called. Why does he call some and not others? Because if He saved everyong he would not be just. Why does He not damn everyone? Because He is a merciful God. If God gave everyone the chance to be saved equally, then potentially everyone on earth could be saved. Would this be fair? Yes, it would, but God is not fair, He is JUST, and justice requires that some be condemned to die for their denial of God. In your next round please present verses that you believe support your side of the argument. As of right now you have only rebuttled my arguments, and have not made any of your own. Thanks! Renzzy
Predestination Unto Salvation

Much of the Bible is based on how you interpret it. For instance "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him." I still interpret that as free will, because you can be drawn to something and still not do it. Again, it's free will, in the end you choose to do it. "…ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God[a] and our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, free will. They choose their own path when they themselves turn away from God and ignore him. God does not force them to do this, all the Bible is saying is that as long as they do this, they will not be accepted into heaven. As for you last verse, the difference between pottery and humans is that humans are an intelligent life form who are capable of making their own choices and are held responsible for those choices.1
Predestination Unto Salvation

"You quotes about how humans in general are evil are really irrelevant since all humans have those flaws." Yes, thats exactly my point. ALL HUMANS HAVE THOSE FLAWS. There is NO ONE who seeks after God. If the Bible is clear on the fact that NO ONE seeks after God, the it is ludicrous to say that you are accepting God on your own accord in your totally depraved state. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? then may he do good who is accustomed to doing evil.". The fact of the matter is this: ALL humans are accustomed to doing evil. Since we are all accustomed to doing evil, it would take an act of God to save us. You just emphasized my point. "Yes he chose to who to save. But the people he chose to save were those who chose to follow him." Not true. The people He chose to save were the people who chose to follow Him. The Bible makes it clear that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him." "He didn't force King Harrid to keep and abuse his power rather than worship him," Jude 1:4--- "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God[a] and our Lord Jesus Christ." "just like God didn't force Peter to follow Jesus either." Ephesians 1:4--- "For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in is sight..." They chose their actions and will/were judged accordingly. The Bible makes it quite clear that when it comes to salvation, GOD chose who He would save and who He would not save. Romans 9:20-21--- "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" Thanks, Renzzy
Predestination Unto Salvation

To me it's clear the predestination is not taught in the Bible. For instance, why would the devil had tempted if he had already known what was going to happen. Why would God be mad at adam for taking the apple if he knew it would happen. I believe that the Bible teaches the concept of free will, we decide our own fate, it is not already set in stone. If it were, what would be the point of life?
Predestination Unto Salvation

Christ died so that everyone could go to heaven, and by doing so took upon himself all of our sins. To reinforce my point that we do have free will and the ability to chose our own fate, I looked up some Bible quotes of my own. "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, (Deuteronomy 30:19) "And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15) Who is the man who fears the LORD? He will instruct him in the way he should choose. (Psalms 25:12) Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the LORD. (Proverbs 1:29) Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways. (Proverbs 3:31) "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. (Isaiah 7:15) For thus says the LORD, "To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, (Isaiah 56:4) I will destine you for the sword, And all of you shall bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight, And chose that in which I did not delight." (Isaiah 65:12) So I will choose their punishments, And I will bring on them what they dread. Because I called, but no one answered; I spoke, but they did not listen. And they did evil in My sight, And chose that in which I did not delight." (Isaiah 66:4) For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (2 Corinthians 5:15) For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. (1 Timothy 4:10) And finally, as far as God choosing who gets into heaven, I again say that he is fair and just, as Peter says in Bible: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Peter 3:18)
Gay Rights Debate (Please no religious arguments)

Actually on the contrary, a business can fire you for having a tattoo. Having a tattoo is a choice. A business cannot fire you for being black. Being black is not a choice. Now, a business can fire you for being gay because being gay is a choice. The same goes for same sex marriage. First you let them marry, people will start marrying dogs and cats. Also, it is not natural, but I know what you will say. "But we see it in other species too" well great argument with one hole in it. We see cannibalism in other species! We see sharks eating their own babies! Should we do it too? No! Scientific proof shows that it is a choice. Also, people get married to have children. I know you said no religous arguments, and this not one, however it says in many religous texts that it is immoral, and these texts were written thousands of years ago. Now you have people saying that they are born being gay. At some point they will choose to be. Out DNA wants us to have children. Why on god"s green earth would our own dna want us to be gay if then we could not have children. Now. Is there a possibility that it is a choice? Do you want to tell me that everyone who is gay is just "born with it" I want you to tell me. Do you think there is a sliver of possibility that it is a choice?
Gay Rights Debate (Please no religious arguments)

First of all being gay is not something you cannot control, it may not be considered a mental disorder but it should be a basic human right that we all have the will to love whoever we want. I see no reason that people must be restricted due to their love preference and I say everybody should be free. This is a serious problem but I support all gay people because I have no problem with them, sure if a girl asks me out I will say no but I won't hate on them because they could not control it. Being gay should be fine and if you do not like it, don't do it! It is as simple as that if you are forced into a wrong and right for dating isn't that a little unfair? You get to date who you want most likely (straight people) so why not the gays?
Funniest Video 2.0

As my first challenge was with a new user, he failed to post a video the proper way and it did not show up. I am giving him another chance. In round 2 I will post what I propose to be the funniest video, CON will then post his proposed funniest video (Just copy and paste the link to the video and review & submit) http://www.debate.org...I propose all votes go to one or the other.