BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cyber School

Thanks for the reply. In response to you saying "advocating a more complete curriculum requiring use of more than one program, and utilizing various tools to help improve the process" I don't think they would ever do that for one reason. Their goal isn't to teach students about the web or computers. Their goal is to teach them about the subjects all the students are learning. So they would make the program as simple and as easy as possible, and most likely in 1 program. As for my "obvious" reasons, I mean the students getting the social affect of traditional schooling. Also the affect teachers have on students. Teacher give lectures and push students to do their work. They are the kids parents wile the parents are at work. Most parents would much rather their kid be at school following rules than be at home by themselves all day. Also I've read that colleges are skeptical of accepting Cyber Schoolers just for the fact that it's not the traditional way of schooling. And that for them to have a good chance they need to score better than traditional schoolers on the SAT's just to have an equal opportunity. You also explain how kids could go out and find clubs, my argument is, is that actually reasonable? Most kids would't go out looking for a club, they would just be happy they are out of traditional school. I know this because I am in traditional school right now. But if the kids went to traditional school, then they would see their friends playing sports and teachers urging them to participate in some sort of extracurricular activity. Thus making it a much bigger chance of the student actually doing it. Also, we are all well aware of the obesity problem in the United States. Which is why a lot of school districts are stressing the importance of gym class. Well students in Cyber School wont get the advantage of participating in gym class. I could also argue that students could actually get a lot lazier by Cyber Schooling. They wouldn't have to wake up early in the morning and get ready, they wouldn't have to walk around, up/down stairs. And they would have to participate in gym. Most kids aren't even going outside right now in America, so that exercise in gym class they got could be some of the only exercise they've gotten all day. You say teachers wouldn't loose jobs, because they would have to operate the classrooms, well once again I will point out that you must not fully understand the fundamentals of Cyber Schooling. When signing up for Cyber Schooling, students choose weather they work offline with no teacher and just answer questions that are automated, or they choose a live online class with a teacher. Surly students would choose the online class with a teacher, but they would also choose the offline class. Meaning without a doubt teachers would loose jobs. Then you say human labor wouldn't be lost, it would just change. I'm not sure if you know, but programming is a lot harder than cutting grass and mopping floors. It is completely unreasonable to expect people to go to school and learn how to program for this. So there would definitely be a huge amount of job loss's. I await a response.
Cyber School

Thanks for you prompt reply, Con. My opponent begins by pointing out that cyber-schooling only uses one type of program. Quite obviously my response will simply be advocating a more complete curriculum requiring use of more than one program, and utilizing various tools to help improve the process. Con's next contention is that colleges will not value the good grades of one who attended cyber-school as opposed to a traditional high school. He suggests this is for "obvious" reasons though there is nothing obvious about it to me. Why should one's achievements be discredited simply because they learned via a different method? The location of learning does not impact the actual knowledge the pupil demonstrates. Con also brings up extra-curricular and social activities, though I've clearly already addressed this in Round 1. There are plenty of outside clubs and groups for kids to join apart from their school. For instance, Girls and Boy Scouts; recreational sports; church groups; music lessons; groups specifically for those who are home-schooled; etc. Finally, Con says that if people were cyber-schooled teachers would lose jobs. That is not true. Who would run the cyber-classrooms? Educators would still be necessary to tutor and teach the information, as well as provide the lessons, do the grading and assignments, etc. Also, the scenario Con introduces in which human labor becomes obsolete in the face of growing technology is actually rooted in flawed economic reasoning demonstrated by Luddite Fallacy [1]. While it's true the market may no longer need as many school janitors or lunch ladies, it will need more people for computer programming, marketing various cyber schools, etc. Therefore the need for human labor doesn't go down; instead the type of labor needed changes [2]. With that said, my opponent has yet to provide any good reasoning as to why cyber schooling should not be an option. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Easterly, William. The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 53–54.
Students should not be given preference in college admissions due to ethnicity or race.

The CON forfeited in Round 2, perhaps because he/she realizes that not giving students preference based on ethnicity or race is the best way to achieve equality in college admissions. I would like to make a disclaimer for all audience members - I have nothing against any racial group and do not value any ethnic, racial, or gender group over another. In this argument, African Americans are only an example - I highly respect this ethnic group and have nothing against them nor against Hispanics or any other group. Giving equal admissions opportunities and considering students based solely on merit is the most equal way to hold college admissions processes. The CON speaks of equality, yet seems to support Affirmative Action - an inherently unequal and racially unfair system. Asian American subgroups must work harder than other ethnic groups, such as African Americans and Hispanics, to get the same placement in universities. If this is not unequal and unfair, then what is? How can we call Affirmative Action fair? The opposing team seems to blame the exams for being in favor of "white interests". But on standardized aptitude tests, how can this be so? I am not saying that there is no bias - there will be bias against some ethnic group under any circumstance, especially when we all have different definitions of what is biased and what is racist - but I am saying that programs such as Affirmative Action only deepen and widen the racial divide by spawning hateful thoughts and pitting groups against one another. Providing equal opportunities in which no one has special preference, including Asian Americans, African Americans, Whites, Hispanics, and all other ethnic/racial groups, makes for the most equal system. I am not denying that there will still be racial divides, but providing equal opportunities in a non-biased system has a much better chance of achieving social equality than giving preference to students based on ethnicity and race.
Students should not be given preference in college admissions due to ethnicity or race.

When you declare preference, it is better defined as consideration, or "affirmative action". Due to the misdeeds of the past as you mentioned, these ethnic groups and races of minority, have shaped how the education system judges them on exams, or as you have said, their SAT's. But this is simply due to their own culture and heritage, and how they perceive education, and the environments they live in. Affirmative action, the procedures that have been implemented in order to increase the representation of in individuals gender, and race in areas of "employment, education and culture from which they have been historically excluded." At times, affirmative action utilizes what others call preferential selection. From your side you see individuals getting better treatment, a better or lower chance for a better job, or education decided from that same individuals race than anything else. What you, and we all should strive, for is equality. How equal or fair is it when racial prejudice decides the fate of the individual? the bonus points are there as a counter measure. Can you assure me,and others that the all those who mark the test have no racial biases? Biases that they are either aware of, or have blinded themselves to? Racism aside, on a cultural stand, studies have shown that as a whole, these tests are skewed towards the favor of white people. This is not due to racial biases, aptitude or skill. This is simply because the questions are more geared towards the "cultural expressions that are prevalent in white society".The reading section of the SAT show that black students score an average of 429 points, 99 below their white classmates. In other words, it is about race, about ones culture, that helps determine their ability. but it does not necessarily point towards being favourable to ethnic and minority groups. sources: http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.laprogressive.com...
Animals should have rights

I believe animals should have rights. First reason is that we are them, all animals. We have very close DNA's; for example cats actually share 90% of their DNA with us. Second reason is they have their own rights to live because they have their own lives, emotion, pain, even friends and family! Some elephants have been known to have depression disorders! If we destroy their habitat, hunt for their skins and use them as lab testing materials, we kill them, them losing the point of their lives and family. It's practically the same as cannibalism. Some are counted "wild" and even that is sometimes wrong. For example a tiger kills so much animals to fill it's food needs and if it were small, it would never ever attack humans. Every animal is like a human. If you ever had a pet that matched you well, you'd see how attached they'd become to you. I just look at my cat's face and I just go crazy with love. He is also very smart, understanding "go wake up Neda" by just hearing it. We never taught him, but he knew.
Animals should have rights

Just to clarify: what kind of rights are we talking about? Right to vote? Right of Free Speech?Counter-arguments:1: Almost same DNA "We have very close DNA's; for example cats actually share 90% of their DNA with us."I don't really see how this would matter; bananas share about 50% of our DNA. Even then, how does this show that animals should have rights?2: Emotions "Second reason is they have their own rights to live because they have their own lives, emotion, pain, even friends and family! Some elephants have been known to have depression disorders!" Again, how does this show they should have rights?3: "If we destroy their habitat, hunt for their skins and use them as lab testing materials, we kill them, them losing the point of their lives and family. It's practically the same as cannibalism."Cannibalism [kan-uh-buh-liz-uh m] 1. The eating of human flesh by another human being. I don't see how doing that is practically cannibalism, or even "wrong"."Some are counted "wild" and even that is sometimes wrong. For example a tiger kills so much animals to fill it's food needs and if it were small, it would never ever attack humans."Still don't see the relevance.4: "Every animal is like a human" I would beg to differ."If you ever had a pet that matched you well, you'd see how attached they'd become to you. I just look at my cat's face and I just go crazy with love." Yes, you can become emotionally attached to a cat. You can also become emotionally attached to a building. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Arguments:Other living things also have relativly close DNA to us. Should we give rights to grass? Bacteria?Sources:http://www.mirror.co.uk...http://dictionary.reference.com...
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

as heard as it seems to believe yes , several of my friends died , now however the ones that I still keep in contact with are living it up. I keep in contact with 10 out of my 14 good friends I had when I was a kid. the other 4 died 2 killed and 2 died of other causes. My friends and me didn't realize how bad it was when we were kids , we thought violence was acceptable. We have taught our selves after the death of friends that , its not and we realized if we continued to live in the same area as we did and refuse to learn at school , then violence was always going to be around us . You are right in saying some races and groups are more prone to violence however , its only those that choose to be. You are not born into violence , unless you live in a country torn apart by war of course. You choose to continue living in violence , and not to change your life and do better things.
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

Of course if somebody hits you mostly likely you are going to hit them back , doesn't mean you are a violent person . Like I said I have been in lots of life threatening situations and have never once resorted to violence with somebody I had the problem with , only when people attack me shall I defend myself . The idea the more exposed you are to violence the more likely you are to be part of violence in the future is nonsense , I have done ok in my life and have never even seen any violence with my eyes in over ten years now. The fact of the matter is that if you choose to have a bad temper and choose to aggravate people , which certain races and people do. Then you will be part of violence, I grew up there and its never even occurred to me to hit somebody in 10 year after being exposed to all that death and violence.
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

As touching and sad it was to hear what you had to say the fact remains is that all you did was prove my point. You said "When i was young in the city i lived in called glasgow , scotland . I was never once taught violence was bad , infact i was taught the complete opposite. Now it was not that my parents never cared for me it was for one simple reason, If i thought violence was bad and was afriad of it then , there is a very very high chance i wouldnt be here right now." Right there you admit that the teachings of your parents were that violence is necessary for survival. You also mention that stabbings and deaths were frequent so you could say that by the influence most people from Glasgow are going to be more violent. I never said that violence was wrong or unnecessary. Lets go back to the title some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others. Now lets use and example for the argument on the table. Lets take Muslims living in the middle east. Now the teachings of their god Allah teaches peace and prosperity, but think the Muslim government in the past brought forth the idea of the "Jihad" a holy war. Now a god who teaches peace never says charge into battle does he? Over time though there was more and more "holy wars" and the result ultimately became a warring group of people. Even now we are fighting many middle eastern who aren't united under a banner in fact you cant find anything similar among them except they are for the most part Muslim!!! The violence and the fanatical behavior did not just develop as soon as America began fighting its war. It was developed from centuries of war and battle, chemical weapons testing, and suicide bombing.
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

ok i will take this up ,i will base this argument on personal exprince and not statistics , as for me i have lived through some bad domestic abuse , nothing even close to dictaorship or goverment evil , i am talking about the place were i grew up . When i was young in the city i lived in called glasgow , scotland . I was never once taught violence was bad , infact i was taught the complete opposite. Now it was not that my parents never cared for me it was for one simple reason, If i thought violence was bad and was afriad of it then , there is a very very high chance i wouldnt be here right now. Where i grew up drugs were coming into play , alchol abuse was incredibly high and teenagers were alays lookign for a fight with deadly wepaons . This may not be the glasgow the world knows , this is the glasgow i know and the people of glasgow know. Stabbings were common , deaths even more common ... i was taught violence was good to an extent , i was taught if you are violent you still stand a good chance of being invovled in violence however if you are not violent , not willing to stick up for yourself even when somebody calls you something stupid and wont apologise then you become a vicitim. Certain groups become victims i accept mainly because they let themselves become vicitims they are not prepared to do something about it. i was taught to respect violence , i leanred myself that you never start a fight . But however you will always have the last laugh. i think the old saying is right to an extent if you lived in a place like i did , " better to be feared than loved " or in my case " better to be feared , than stabbed to death " ...
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

Now when you see the topic of the argument I don't want you to think that I am judging all people under a certain group or race to be extremely violent with no hope of change. What I am trying to point out whether people want to admit it or not is that certain societies religions and other things have brought constant exposure to violence to certain groups of people making them more prone to violence. When you grow up seeing something for most people they do what they saw from when they were little. If you are taught from a young age that violence is not neccisarily wrong than who can tell you that it is? Ok so argue with me person.
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

my parents were alcoholics .... but like I have stated so many times , is everybody has their own free will. You make choices about your own life in the first world countries. Nobody else can tell you what to do , sure there is peer pressure , drugs gangs and the works. But of course its obvious groups are more prone to violence , because the area they live in is violent and deadly . Think about it though say I was a middle class , well educated and white and middle aged ( because they are group least exposed to violence ) do you think for a second the only reason these people are not violent is because they dotn have to be ? if they walked into these ghettos and bad areas after several days of living there , they sink to the same level as the people that have always lived there. Unless of course they choose not to , violence is a disease , if you don't get protected against it , you are guaranteed to catch it.
Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

Wether or not you expect people to base all incidents off of your own life expireince or not i refuse to believe that someone who is born into a good family raised in a good neighborhood and is taken care of and disciplined is more prone to violence then someone who has no parents or born in the ghetto or uses drugs. It just doesnt make any sense. In the end you are right we have a choice but i believe strongly that the enviroment and the teachings of our parents or peers dramatically change or decision when it comes to it.
Napoleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a War #3

I am sorry I cannot post on Monday. 1. Tactics Most historians agree that Napoleon was an expert at tactics. This is undeniable. For example, at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon used his many tactics to win the battle. When he faked a retreat and his enemy chased him, he cleverly used his cavalry to charge. He then surrounded his enemy and won. 2. Battles. Lets look at some of the most important battles Napoleon Bonaparte and George Washington fought. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came As you see, Napoleon is a much better tactition than George Washington. 3. Troops Napoleon's men were highly trained, compared to George Washington's inexperienced men. 4. Navy Napoleon had a large navy. All Washington had were a few frigates and many privateers. Sources Wikipedia is an accurate source! . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.onepowerfulword.com... . http://www.historyofwar.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://sc94.ameslab.gov... . http://www.whitehouse.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.pbs.org...
The God in question does indeed exsist

Thanks for the debate Cujosrevenge. My opponent has chosen to ignore almost all of my responses to her first round arguments so I can only assume that she concedes them. ___________ My Opponent: (round 1) : "The existence of God cannot be proved....That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence". Me: "I disagree. If there is evidence for something then proving it is usually quite straightforward. The fact that something "cannot be proved" would indicate that there is no evidence for it's existence." My Opponent: (round 2) "Exactly. But whose to say that it can not be proved?" ________ As you can see, it is my opponent herself who first made the observation that God could not be proved. Stating this and subsequently agreeing with my re-wording of it seems to be completely conceding the debate. ________ PRO: "Lets say for example... Dinosaurs have been proved to have existed... but people ONLY know what they hear or are taught by others. Scientists and people can only prove things in the date span that they are studying in." I have seen the bones of dinosaurs with my own eyes but never seen evidence of the Christian God. PRO: "Whose to say that anyone cant prove the existence of God?" You have said it yourself, so have I and many others. PRO: "God existence was before the existence of man." I can't just accept that as fact without any kind of evidence. PRO: "I don't think that you'll ever understand until God himself stands in front of you. Wait until the end of the world, and we will see whose right." I don't expect to be around if and when the end of the world comes but who knows? I'm not sure what the voting period on this debate is but assuming it is indefinite, I hope people don't wait until the end of the world to vote for whoever they thought presented more convincing arguments etc. Thanks again for a fun discussion. CON.
The God in question does indeed exsist

I appreciate my opponent saying "Before I begin I would like to reassure my opponent that while I may criticise them in my arguments I intend no personal disrespect to her faith, her beliefs or convictions." My opponent made the following statement: <"That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence"> I disagree. If there is evidence for something then proving it is usually quite straightforward. The fact that something "cannot be proved" would indicate that there is no evidence for it's existence. Exactly. But whose to say that it can not be proved? Lets say for example... Dinosaurs have been proved to have existed... but people ONLY know what they hear or are taught by others. Scientists and people can only prove things in the date span that they are studying in. Whose to say that anyone cant prove the existence of God? God existence was before the existence of man. I give Kudos to you for trying... but I don't think that you'll ever understand until God himself stands in front of you. Wait until the end of the world, and we will see whose right. Only time will tell though.