BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job.

The purpose of school SHOULD be, and IS the bestowal of knowledge so that people may live more fulfilling lives. We learn many rote skills in both primary and secondary school, but ultimately there are specific lessons and mind processes we learn that are most important, as they teach us how to be "decent human beings." (Totally dependent on what that person views as moral) Earning a job because of a certain path of classes/courses is a bi product of education. Con may take many different approaches to this, as it's a very open discussion. I made my opening argument short so that we could make this fun and full of possibilities. Good luck to whomever accepts the challenge.
No right or wrong answers in ethics

Justifying someone's actions or thoughts based on the freedom this country gives the leaves no moral ground for what those actions or thoughts may result in. Anger,resentment, and built up adrenaline are very general negative emotions that usually never result in a positive circumstance. These negative emotions are usually identified with dangerous people, like kidnappers, murderers and just overall evil people with bad intentions. Now if society were to justify any evil and immoral acts because of negative emotions, we would let criminals act as they please without any repercussion. This is why we have jails and courts systems two evaluate the wrongs these aggressive these people could commit. Using the analogy of the garbage can being thrown on the street, say the situation were to escalate and one person winds up murdering the other because things just get out of hand. Someone innocent dies and the other is let off because of the freedom of his uncontrollable behavior. Not being able to tell that person is wrong for committing murder is inexcusable and goes against thorax integrity this if try bneeds to protect its civilians. These "odd" people with usually abnormals beliefs can have very dangerous and violent intentions that raise a threat to society, it then becomes the responsibility of the government officials to take charge and to protect its citizens from further danger. There's I'd a huge difference between moral and creative integrity that needs to be correctly differentiated. People with questionable moral integrity are usual a threat to society because they don't believe in safe and moral behavior. People are given the right believe what they please in a creative or religious sense, but there's a fine line between a citing aggressively unjustly upon those beliefs or just practicing your beliefs in a harmless manner, which is acceptable and warranted.it is understandable that people tend to make mistakes andgetouti decontrol but when those mistakes and uncontrollable behavior leads to unforgivable and dangers situations , that behavior must be punished because it is wrong. The struggles people go through Ina daily basis are inevitable factors of life that all humans experience, those struggles cannot justify immoral or unethical behavior.
No right or wrong answers in ethics

Okay so you bring up a good point relating to violence, now the violence aspect we can discuss another time, but what we need to evaluate and understand is that during the premeditated violence that may occur due to whatever the situation relates to, the acting prior to the violence are not necessarily right or wrong ethically. This is because during that time where there is anger building up and adrenaline starting to pump, their actions and thoughts are not necessarily right or wrong. That is because they are the only person that is feeling those emotions during that time, so as an outsider who am I to say that what they chose to do during that time of anger prior to the violence is right or wrong. Let"s say that two people get into an argument on the street. One person decides to pick up a garbage can and throw it into the street. What that person did to that garbage can is relating to their feelings. I cannot tell that person what they did to that garbage can was right or wrong, because in the heat of the moment there are no right or wrong answers to ethics. I also feel that in the heat of the moment in many situations, morals will tend to go out the window. This might not be the case for everyone, but for the most part it does happen. People don"t always think straight and we understand that as a society. But what we try to do is criticize and judge people based on their ethics. Those people that get judged are being discriminated against because they are the "odd" people in society. Just because they choose to live outside of the social norms, that doesn"t mean that they are deviant, and it gives no one the right to criticize their decisions. By you saying that our society needs ethical integrity because it makes society more appropriate, what you are forgetting to realize is that not everyone chooses to conform to society. So with your statement you are suggesting that everyone needs to conform for society to become an easy place to live in. This world isn"t an easy place to live in, and its not because of society, its because of the struggles that individuals face everyday of their lives because people of certain social groups, powers, religious backgrounds, and races that decide that they are the most important people in society and that they have a right to tell the non conformers that what they choose to do ethically is wrong because those individuals don"t want to conform. That is why society isn"t an easy place to live in. People struggle every single day trying to fight the battles and unfairness of society, and most people don"t even realize that there are people out there trying to just get by day by day without all of the negativity surrounding them, but its hard. If you wanted society to become and easy and enjoyable place for people to live in then you would have to understand that telling people what they are choosing to do is either right or wrong is the incorrect approach. People need to learn from their own experiences. We as society cannot just pave a road for every individual. There are no right or wrong ways for someone to live their life.
No right or wrong answers in ethics

If we were to let people do as they please just because they have moral disagreements and no one has the power to say or act upon it, then the arguments stand pointless in the first place. If we took a path toward moral relativism, then we are not only avoiding important discussion, and decision making, but we are also disregarding the immoral beliefs of violent characters that take party in society everyday. Ethics does not only offer a better direction of angling sensitive issues like, gay marriage or body image. Ethics also offers some answers on who to solve these issues and to help alleviate tension amongst opposing parties in these scenarios by making them think about how their opponents feel and how to better handle the arguments. You are mostly referring to people who practice dogmatism, and that is in no way a helpful way to solve any issue in society. Dogmatism only attempts to offer less elaborate thinking upon important issues, like the ones mentioned. Dogmatists tend to rely not their own impertinent opinion when handling arguments and only assert there own troubles and opinions toward important arguments. Without empathy and reason, dogmatists avoid critical thinking and with that they can create a barrier against any sort of objective reconciliation. If our society were to let relativists, and dogmatists run how we make decisions, we would be letting a lot of guilty people slide and a lot of innocent people suffer by letting people do as they please. Again, i believe that in order for our society to strive and make the bed decisions for it, is to have some confines in judgement and behavior based on a ethical and moralistic scale. Having ethical integrity does not make our society unfair, it only makes it more appropriate and easy to live in a place where moral values are placed upon our beliefs and laws. The justice system works to provide comfort and sustainability for the present and the future, and that is what is most important when having to make decisions for our system. Corporation of the people and the government is necessary and helpful, but degrading and criticizing the rights and wrongs in not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that in ethics, there will be right and wrong answers to how one will go about deciding what is right for mankind. I stand by that I'm ethics and our system of government, there cannot be all gray area, or else the system fails.
No right or wrong answers in ethics

With the three branches of government: judicial, executive, and legislative they do make up the laws regarding safety for society. But what they also do is create laws and punishments that for instance favor the "rich, white male." An example of the government making laws to favor the dominate white male of the country would be the issue between cocaine and crack cocaine. Crack is considered the poor mans drug where cocaine is considered the white wealthy mans drug. What the government has created is a law that states a man caught with possession of crack is going to receive a more harsh punishment than a person found with the same amount of cocaine. This is a prime example of why the government has created such controversy between the citizens of the United States of America. Just because people have elected them into congress and into power who are they to say that someone with crack should receive a harsher and more unfair punishment than someone caught with cocaine? What they have created is a mess, and they were not given the power to decide what is wrong or right, ethically, in our society. They believe they have the right to tell us, when in reality it is based off of the individuals feelings and what they want to do they are going to do. Because as a united nation, we are not united in our ideas, therefore there are no right or wrong answers in ethics. In order for there to be a differentiation between right and wrong, our society needs to come together as a whole. You talk about the Christian society and how they are making the most noise on gay marriage, but did god himself come down from wherever he may be and say to them, you are the ones that are in control of people"s decisions even when it doesn"t affect your life? I highly doubt that. Just because religious groups read about it and practice, and study it, that doesn"t make them in charge of everyone"s beliefs in this nation. The thing about gay marriage that blows my mind is that how is it that two people getting married can bother strangers so much that they feel the need to broadcast, embarrass, and degrade those people who are madly in love with each other? Even with that being said, those people of those religious groups are able to fight against what they believe in. In this generation we find this quite unsettling but no one here has the authority to say what they are doing is wrong or right. Back to the crack, cocaine example, yes the government has made that law and stated the consequences for possession of those drugs, but they have no right to say that a law should be created where both individuals are treated unfairly. But they have the right to express how they feel because of freedom os speech. I guess what I'm trying to ask is who told the government and the representatives of states that they are the people who are right and wrong and who differentiate between the two? Just because they are in power, it doesn't mean they are ethically correct or incorrect. There are definitely no right or wrong answers in ethics and morals. Society doesn"t rule the world. It"s the individuals that rule their own lives.
No right or wrong answers in ethics

Ashley Fratangelo: Pro- There are no right or wrong answers in ethics. I believe that there are no right or wrong answers in ethics because I feel that morals have lost their meaning. Societal groups today don't have much of an effect on individuals because now there are a lot more people becoming independent both on their views, feelings, and morals. What I mean by people becoming more independent is that people now-a-days are tending to go opposite of what society says is "correct." Society has become extremely judgmental with the way people look, act, etc,. Because if you look at social media, they are sending messages to children of all ages showing how they should look, talk, act, etc,. but some individuals today want to go against the social norm and do their own thing. But what is society to tell them what is wrong and right? Society is just being brainwashed by what the government and people in power want them to believe. Individuals today haven't come to agreement morally and ethically. If they had, why are people going against what is right? As people continue to grow and change with society, controversy will also grow within the groups and also towards groups already in existence. Social media does have an effect on society, obviously, but not everyone gets affected by what the media has to say. With some media, they want us to believe certain things, then we get the "rebels" that go against that but only because they feel that what the media is trying to get across is wrong. With this, I can say that this stand on this argument has a more subjective view on the topic. This has led to a grey area in a general view of beliefs. Because of the diverse groups that have evolved through society over time, there is no one group that is higher than the others. All of the sub groups throughout society have their own beliefs and ideas, but who is to say that they are correct over any other group? No group is superior to another and they cannot tell others what they are doing is right or wrong. Everyone has their own view on many different topics and because people have removed themselves from conforming, there are no right and wrong answers in ethics. Things aren't always what they seem and not everything is black and white. United States society today has a lot of bumps throughout it, and is not equal across the board on many ideas. With that being said I can argue that there are no right or wrong answers in ethics. Claiming that there is a right or wrong answer is ethics, I can't agree with that because of the way that society is today. I can't agree with that because of the "rebels" that exist in our society today. I also cannot agree with that because everyone is different, and society is not uniformed. Every individual is different in every way, they may think the same on certain ideas and topics but that doesn't mean they have conformed completely. Because of the lack of conforming, there are no right or wrong answers in ethics today. People have evolved into their own way of life.
Jar Jar is a sith lord

I do recommend that you see episodes II and III, they really show how the empire unfolds and comes about. Jar Jar was not elected president, but senator for the Gungans. And I'm pretty sure the senate had many unique species from their own planets, humans were not the majority. Onto the force power section: In episode I, Jar Jar can constantly be seen behind the crowd in many key conversations. He uses the force to manipulate what others are saying with an occasional wave of the hand. He also mouths out the words that are said by the ones he is controlling. CGI mistake? I think not. Also, the jump that Jar Jar makes into the lake is obviously force-assisted. Who can jump that high? When the jedi prepare to rescue the queen in Theed, they jump down off of a bridge. But Jar Jar falls and hangs onto the bridge. What is the significance? In the next scene, Jar Jar cannot be seen, but he is fired upon by battle droids. the droids heads end up looking to the left as if he had jumped to the other side to avoid laser fire. Obviously his Sith powers in action.
Jar Jar is a sith lord

Oh, sorry. I thought there were only 2 rounds, it was an optical illusion or something. Don't worry, I'm into the whole five round thing. I'm glad you're willing to do that. Some people only put three rounds. That sucks. Anyway, let's go on with it. I've never actually seen episodes two or three, because I don't want to see Anakin turn into Darth Vader and all that, I'm sure it would be traumatic even at my age, but I know a few things about them, what with the clone army and whatever, so I'll plunge into that. Jar jar is dumb, sure, and he probably is incapable of being the Star wars president or whatever. Still, he's a bold leader with a courageous heart of gold and I'm sure that, when he took the position, he was ready to do whatever was best for the galaxy, even if he's a stupid fish guy. He's inept, is all. Still, much more competent than the orange carrot man who's our real president, but that's a story for another time. I think that, perhaps, George Lucas is trying to give us a political allegory here. Let's say that, before Jar Jar was elected, the senate was mostly controlled by humans. Now, a gungan is elected. SEE? Instead of those boring, dumb, humans, we finally get a weird alien running for office! It's progress! George Lucas predicted Obama winning ten years ahead! Cool, right? I don't think Gungans should be excluded from being president. Or voting. Or living like equal beings even if they are fish people with annoying, high pitched voices. He might have made a mistake, but, again, that's not because he wants to kill everyone, it's just because he's dumb. They probably shouldn't have elected him, but they did, so he can do whatever he wants to do. If he sees Old Palpatine or whatnot, he doesn't have rational thinking skills, he can't distinguish good from evil. Palpatine might see that the president is a dope and try to sway him over to his side. He hands Jar Jar a few martinis, they talk about stuff like good buds, the next thing you know, Jar Jar is drunk stiff and Palpatine convinces him to sign a contract that makes him the maniacal dictator or whatever. Again, not because Jar Jar is evil. He's just mentally handicapped. And, again, we shouldn't pick on people with disabilities. It's not nice. There might be an Autistic guy in the white house some day, so we should be ready for that. Again, you're using nothing but insane conspiracy theories that I don't think George Lucas ever even tried to show. Jar Jar is not a villain, he's a goofy fish guy with the Intelligence Quotient of a stalk of celery. He is in no way a threat to anyone. Jar Jar doesn't kill people. People who take advantage of Jar Jar do.
Jar Jar is a sith lord

Well, considering that we still have more arguments, you probably shouldn't be outta here. Into episode II, we find that Jar Jar has been placed into a position of the Galactic Senate. Who in their right mind would place the stupidest character in the galaxy on a seat of leadership and let him have a say in the affairs of the Galaxy? But here is the real focus: Jar Jar is the main proponent in the movement to give Chancellor Palpatine (Darth Sidious in disguise) supreme emergency powers. This pretty much gives him the power to do whatever he wants until the separatists have been defeated. And the first act of the chancellor's status is to create an army of the republic using the secret clone army that was discovered by Jar Jar. If the jedi did not know about the clone army, then how could Palpatine without the help of Jar Jar.
Jar Jar is a sith lord

Let me begin, Jar Jar conveniently placed himself in the way of the two jedi on naboo. But why? He had been banished from his home for being CLUMSY! Who is banished for being clumsy? He was obviously forced out of there by the gungans because of his sith powers. Why else would he mention that boss nass forbids the force? It is because jar jar killed many gungans and he has been waiting for his opportunity to get revenge. He finds a sith lord named darth sidious to do his biding by making the trade federation invade naboo. Once the two jedi find him, he tags along and acts like an idiot because he sees that they can possibly take him somewhere important. What place is more important than Tatooine? There, his senses tell him that there is a major concentration of the force in Mos Espa, more specifically, a slave boy named Anakin. He has even more midichlorians than master yoda and jar jar sees that e could make a powerful apprentice. Once the jedi and the others leave the desert planet and arrive at Coruscant, Jar Jar finds that he can easily infiltrate his way into the governmental system. While on the city planet, he discovers the secret plan to build a clone army for the republic. Realizing that he could use the droids and the clones for his will, he goes back to naboo to rid the trade federation off the planet.
Western Logic is arbitrary and useless, and cannot lead to true knowledge

The Western concept of logic is useless and cannot lead to true knowledge.(Please note: I may or may not agree with this position, but will attempt to argue it anyways)The idea of logic is arbitrary and not based on any objectively knowable truth.All "logic" is really just a system that appears to adequately describe the operation of reality as we percieve it. We have no reason to believe that this percieved reality actually exists or not, and hence we have no reason to believe that this "logic" has any correspondence to any form of real truth. We also have reason to believe that nothing exists, which rules out logic corresponding to any actual reality.Nothing exists.Any item in reality can be described as a collection of smaller items that compose it. None of those items, taken on their own, can be said to be the item in question. This idea can furthermore be applied to all those remaining smaller items, and in fact everything else. Thus, it is definitively proven that nothing exists.Logic is Useless.Since the only use of logic is as system that appears to describe reality as we percieve it, and reality as we percieve it does not exist, logic is useless.Logic cannot lead to true knowledge.Since logic can only be based on a series of what are in the end arbitrary assumptions(of reality, causality, consistency, existence, etc), it has no fundamental basis in true knowledge, and cannot lead to true knowledge. True knowledge can only be acquired by some method other than the arrogant, arbitrary, and childish ways of Western Logic.
Single Sex Schooling is beneficial for students.

Unfortunately, Con forfeited his previous round. Therefore, I am only go to provide the titles of my arguments and will not go into much detail to allow my opponent a chance to redeem himself next round. Thank you for this debate. Hopefully, you come back next round! Also, Con did not say who had the BoP. I assume Con must prove that single-sex schools are not beneficial OR mixed gender schools are better. Then, I as Pro must prove that there are benefits of single-sex schools. ArgumentsTwo subpoints fall under my first point here. FocusStudent FocusStudents will focus on more important things such as their education, thus these students will have a greater chance to a better future. Focused CurriculumTeachers have the option to alter certain aspects of the curriculum or their teaching method to create a better relation between the student and what he/she is learning. Two more subpoints fall under my second main point.School EnvironmentLoss of Gender StereotypesSingle-sex school environments allow male and female students to pursue careers in fields that are usually dominated by members of the opposite sex. More Relaxed SchoolingThis is sort of tied in with my focus point. There are generally fewer cliques and there is less pressure on students socially to act certain ways; therefore, students can be themselves. My two main points, focus and schooling environment will be elaborated in the next round. I will ask kindly for my opponent to not refute anything I said in this round (though I'm not sure how much you could really refute right away :P) as I did not get a chance to rebuttal any of your arguments.Thank you!Good luck in the rounds to follow!