BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is education necessary for people's future lives

Counter Argument ensuing....College wasn't the right place for Bill's mind. But we are off topic now, let's start focusing on the bigger picture, all people.True college is a tool to be used that helps us find our way in adulthood, but if you have ideas and motivation, there is no need. With the right ideals and determination, money could be better spent on starting a business that could grow into something beautiful. College now a days is all about getting the diploma that looks pretty to employers. Many of the creative and idea forming types, aren't very good at being employees and want to be in charge of themselves. Not going to college and pursuing their passion enables them to do whatever they want! Where do all great businesses start? In the land of no restraints and boundaries.I make the argument that higher education is NOT a necessity! Intrinsic motivation is all it takes to follow your dreams and make your own success. Sure you got a Stanford diploma, but is this a predictor for ultimate success in your life? No. All over the world, college is becoming more than just a means of education to better yourself, it is becoming a novelty, a piece of paper that is so desperately craved by people who want to look good to employers. Whether you are big or small, intelligent or not intelligent, you can make your own success without the validation or "seal of approval" from a college. Choose the way you want to live your life. College is not a necessity, and success is purely decided based on your actions.
Is education necessary for people's future lives

I accept your challenge. Education is probably one of the most debatable subjects there is. Let's review what we know. Education has helped, some not all, forge a path down the road of job opportunities. But is education a necessity for the future? I will be inferring that "education for people's future lives" means college education, which has the biggest effect on the outcome of people and their jobs. College education becomes increasingly more money, and some people who have big ambitions, can't afford what they think is a necessity. People in the past, such as Bill Gates, have not needed a college education to succeed in life. He also did not have some sort of magical gift that granted him that success. Bill Gates MADE his success by hard work and determination almost comparable to the most stubborn of donkeys. The sky is the limit when you have an idea and you want nothing more than to make it reality. Education is learning, but ambition is an entirely different thing that can make the best out of the most unlikely circumstances. Concluding Statement - Ambition can overcome the necessity of education, when the determination is at maximum.
Is education necessary for people's future lives

Education is necessary for the outcome of students. Education provides knowledge, support and insight on the world to come. Knowledge is a gift, one that you can't get off the streets. Most every job requires a multitude of knowledge on many subjects. Support, or encouragement, pushes people to work harder, give it their all, and be persistent. All of these are used to get higher up in a job. One's future doesn't come at them like a sledgehammer. It comes slowly, with much time to consider. Education gives the insight of the world that they will soon enter
The existance of God (philsophical debate)

I don't really have much time to give a solid rebuttal here. Just woke up hungover with 17 minutes left on the clock. I promise to get back to the stuff I don't have time to cover, in round 5. "Now if your saying this unit circle is potential infinite it had to begin, there had to be a first loop. If you are saying that circular time is an actual infinite. I would like you to explain this unit circle analogy a lot clearer. The reason is is because in both philosophy and mathematics it is recognised that actual infinities are impossible." In the unit circle analogy, there is no first loop. Each loop consists of similiar angles. If you ask me to present you an angle and tell me what loop it is in, I would have to point to all the loops. There is no problem in "reaching the angle", because exists in all loops. Whenever we answer this question by pointing to a specific loop, we are actually only saying that "this is how many loops has been completed in the positive/negative direction relative to angle zero". However, what loop angle zero is assigned in, is completely arbitrary, because there is no point in the endless loops to compare it to. In the same way, what point in circular time is called the present, is also arbitrary. It exists in all loops as well. Only if we assign an arbritary point of comparison, can we begin to say something about what loop we are in. As for what you write about logic, I'll just refer you back to what I wrote in the previous round.
The existance of God (philsophical debate)

G'day mate, throw unuda shrimp on the barbie. I understand that a loop of circular time is finite, and there is no problem completing this finite loop. My argument was that you said these reoccurring finite loops had to beginning, no first loop. Now if this were the case in order to get to this loop that were are in now, we would have passed Infinite loops. And that is impossible." In your unit circle analogy you seem to be presenting a potential infinite. You are saying that no matter how many times we complete this finite loop we can always go around one more time. So to get to a certain loop is not impossible. Now an example of a potential infinite is numbers. No matter how high we get we can always add one, this is a potential infinite. The problem is you saying circular time had no beginning or first loop. This means that to get to any point, we would need to pass infinite loops. Another way to look at it is this. If the circular time had no first loop, the loop that we are in now has had infinite loops prior to it. And this would mean we have gone through infinite loops which can't be done. Now if there was a first loop to get to a certain loop would not be impossible because we can always go around the loop another time. "so you are trying to escape the problem I presented"" Not at all, I'm simply saying that by Gods infinite power all things were made. God did not take nothing and turn it into the universe which is what you seem to be asserting. I am saying god created everything by his power, because his power has no limit it is infinite. Now when I say God has an infinite power, I am describing a quality not a quantity. We are not passing infinite to get to gods power or anything like that, because infinite is used as quality not quantity." I don't think you understood what I meant, if we get any kind of lifeless object and make it exist outside of time it could do anything because there would be no time there for it to do anything. Because we established that the cause for the universe exists outside of time it needs to be cause that can choose to do stuff. "" "writing several paragraphs that are completely irrelevant to Christianity." Well that is a lie. Just because the argument can be used for another religion does not mean it can not be used to defend Christianity. That idea is plain stupid. Now my argument of induction was that every day you are dependent on the Christian world view of god creating and sustaining the universe. Because your atheist world view has no basis for it. And induction is not the only example of this. Another is logic. You believe in logic, but logic is immaterial. But the atheist world view has no basis for that either. So when ever you appeal to logic you have to stand on the Christian"world view. " "" " this debate ain't over yet mate, let's not get cheesy yet. " I love you honey.
The existance of God (philsophical debate)

The great debate!!!!!!!! As the name suggests i would like to keep this debate philosophical. Im a christian and im not sure what else too say soooo... Lets dance! My first point is that the universe began too exist so it needs a cause. - the universe can not exist for an infinite amount of time, if it is infinitely in the past to get to any future moment (today) would take infinite time. And infinite cant be completed. So for the universe to exist for an infinite amount of time is an impossibility. Second. The universe cant come from nothing - i dont feel this needs to be elaborated on. From nothing nothing comes Third. So it has a cause, what is this cause? -this cause for the existance of the universe cant be there for an infinite amount of time, because in order to get to that point in which this cause caused the universe. We would have to pass an infinite amount of time (all this goes back to the first point). -and this cause cant come from nothing so it needs a cause. -so the cause for the universe needs a cause. Then the cause for cause of the universe would need a cause. Then the cause for the cause for the cause of the universe would need a cause. -this would go on to create an infinite amount of causes, and if thats the case we could never get to the final cause of the universe so the universe could not exist. Here is an illustration. If i start clapping my hands and i tell you to stop me when i hit infinite claps, you could never stop me because i could never get to that final clap. Like wise if we have infinite causes for the universe, we could never get to that final cause that caused the universe. Fourth. The cause for the universe -now we have esablished that, the universe needs a cause. The cause cant be there for an infinite amount of time. And if it where to have its own cause then that cause would also need a cause, and once again create the impossiblity of an infinite amount of causes. -so the cause for the universe MUST be uncaused! Now if this cause is uncaused some will say it has been there for an infintite amount of TIME. But this uncaused cause exists outside of time. Now this cause is a personel cause. If this cause was a sandwich or a book it would not be able do any thing outside of time, it would just be static. So we are left with this - the cause for for the universe is uncaused and exists outside of time and is a personel cause -GOD some say that god just popped into existance from nothing. No god did not begin to exist he is uncaused. But when I say uncause I dont mean he came from nothing, I mean he has been there eternally (forever) but this DOES NOT mean he has been there for an infinite amount of time because he exists outside of time!
Cut Down All the Trees, Put Them in a Tree Museum

1. We can preserve the trees in formaldehyde so they don't droop and rot away. 2. People like to see trees, we could probably charge the people more than a dollar and a half just to see them. And we could put up a parking lot and charge them usage fees. 3. Industry can make oxygen too. We just have to process water vapor and carbon dioxide to separate the hydrogen out of the water and the carbon out of the carbon dioxide to make oxygen. Then big businesses can make a lot of money off of this, making a lot of people very rich, while increasing economic growth, and raising tax revenue. 4. We can put the birds in a bird museum and charge all the people to see them too. We could also have a pink hotel and give people a discount for the museum if they stay there. Discounts attract customers and help business to profit. We could also throw a boutique and a swinging hot spot in as a package deal so people can save money. 5. We can make furniture out of plastic or metal. Paper can be made from rags or grasses.
Cut Down All the Trees, Put Them in a Tree Museum

A tree will droop if it cut from its stem,so there is no point in displaying them in a museum. First of all we need to understand what do trees give us and their benefits. Humans depend on trees and trees are a beautiful creation. Trees provide us with oxygen and free air. In my opinion no one would like to pay a cent even to see a tree. Humans cannot live without trees, and what is the point of displaying them in a museum. If all the trees are cut there will be a lot of consequences that will be faced by this world. Don't forget there are a lot of birds that make their houses on trees, where will they go. We breathe because of trees, and if the trees are cut how will we live. The furniture we use is made of tree wood. If all the trees are cut how will we have that lavish furniture. Trees give us paper, and if trees finish where will we record our sacred texts. In my opinion trees should be saved, in fact they should be planted. The people with such opinions "that trees should be cut and displayed in museums" should be put in a cage in the museum with the titles of the evil people with evil personalities. THANK YOU
Cut Down All the Trees, Put Them in a Tree Museum

We should cut down all the trees, put them in a tree museum, and charge everyone a dollar and a half just to see them. This would greatly stimulate the economy by creating jobs and the economic exchange of going to a museum to see trees would generate tax revenue. But we don't want to tax them too much. The owners of the museums should have as high of profits as possible so they can invest those profits in our economy and make more money encouraging economic growth and ultimately leading to higher tax revenues as that money circulates through our economy. Also people like seeing trees. It's a real shame that people get to see trees for free. That could be a yuge economic incentive for people to work harder to earn money so they can go to the tree museum and look at trees. Yuge! All these lazy people going for walks and looking at beautiful trees are slowing down the economy and making everyone poorer. They especially hurt the wealthy since when you already have a lot of money you know how awesome that is and just want more and more awesomeness. Not getting wealthier and wealthier or not getting as wealthy as you want to be can be a yuge let down. Yuge! If you love America you'll agree we should do this. Please vote for this winning proposal!
Rape victims are less likely to get pregnant

1. A higher proportion of rapes than consensual sex is homosexual in nature and therefore can't result pregnancy. 5% of inmates get raped every year by other inmates. . http://www.bjs.gov... 6 million people are in jail which brings the total number of prison rapes up to 300,000. One study found that 300,000 women are raped every year. . https://www.ncjrs.gov... Without any other factors that's 50 percent o rapes that can't possibly end in pregnancy and seeing as the majority of people having consensual sex are having are heterosexual possibly up to 90%, I'd say the number of rape encounters likely to end in pregnancy being only 50% compared to over 90% of consensual sex encounters. is is without even taking into consideration that most rapes are anal penetration as opposed to vaginal penetration which makes rape way less likely as well.
Rape victims are less likely to get pregnant

"act of sex" must include oral, anal, and vaginal. ..But okay, this is a ridiculous and somewhat degrading idea. This round is for acceptance so I will respect that, but I have found many articles that show the exact opposite of your claim.. Most, if not nearly all scientist, disagree with pro.. But good luck pro and I hope this becomes a good debate. Cheers, - 6IX GOD
Death penalty

Thank you for debating. The death penalty in mi country, Mexico was completely abolished by president Vicente Fox in 2005. And by then it was only applied for, high treason which there hasnt been one in many many years. I dont know about the United States but in the last years organized crime and violence has incremented very much, and I think one of the reason of these is that there are no capital punishment for criminals that are found guilty, violence crime like rape, kidnapping, and murder.
Brains are more important than beauty

I throw togther an argument just so that I fulfill my BOP.1. ReproductionMore aethetically pleasing animals get laid, thus reproducing, and benefitting the species.2. Advanced Brains are used for advanced operations. Advanced operations don't benefit a species as the two most important are survival and reproduction. Bacteria, some of the simplest organisms on earth, have survived longer than almost all others. Ya. .. That's good enough.
Brains are more important than beauty

I don't know why I accepted this debate...but I guess I'll have a go.Debate Parameters:1. No new arguments in the third round.2. No SEMANTICS!3. 8000 character limit. I have defined the terms.Definitions:Let's define the terms. By "brains," I assume you are referring to above average intellect.By "beauty," I mean above average appearance attributes as well as "beauty" itself. 1. Intelligence: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" [1]2. Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight" [2]3. Appearance: "the way that someone or something looks" [3]Sources:1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://oxforddictionaries.com...3. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

http://www.cnn.com... Resolved: The U.S. Government ought not to sell the Unabomber's possessions without permission from the Unabomber. I just saw this on CNN and was wondering if anyone would like a friendly debate on the subject. Be forewarned, this debate isn't about semantics or legal precedent. I'm looking for a debate on morals - basically: should the government be able to sell a criminal's possessions without permission? If either side makes arguments concerning legal precedent/semantics those arguments are to be discarded. Con can post arguments in R1, or we can both wait until R2; it doesn't matter to me. With all of that said, let the debate begin!
The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

Constitution-Of course Kant's philosophies can be applied to an action. However, the U. S. Government ought to adhere to its Constitution, which does not reflect a Kantian ideology. My opponent cannot simply state that the justice system should behave in compliance with Kant's Formulations. The Constitution contradicts these principles. As the Constitution provides the basis for the U. S. legal system, it should be prioritized when in conflict with an independent moral theory. Kant's impact-Yes, Kant encompasses many basic morals with his Formulations. However, he had no impact upon the framers of the Constitution. Obviously, some of his principles, e. g. liberty and equality, are present in the Constitution due to being basic moral values. However, my opponent is suggesting the absolute application of the Second Formulation, which directly contradicts the Constitution. To see heinous criminals solely as "ends" is not a basic instinct. Morality versus justice-We are not talking about morality. We are talking about what the government/justice system ought to do. The justice system ought to pursue what is just, as the application of the Second Formulation. .. would make all punishment immoral. Freedom of speech-Freedom of speech guarantees ones ability to say anything, to express anything they wish. However, it does not grant them the ability to contain their speech. Also, note that my opponent brought this argument up in the final round. Voting Issues: 1. My opponent has not shown that this action violates the First Amendment. 2. The United States must act upon the Constitution, which contradicts Kant's theories. We are not arguing morality, but whether or not the U. S. should do a certain thing. Of course, the justice system should follow the Constitution, and do what is just. 3. Individual rights can be compromised, under Social Contract theory (basis of the Constitution), if it betters society. Violation of the Social Contract is just cause for punishment.
The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

Same order. -While utilitarianism and the social contract are not universally accepted, they do have bearing upon the United States Constitution, while Kant's theories do not. -Framers of the Constitution acknowledge Locke as an influence. He is widely recognized as providing a large portion of the ideology on which the Constitution is based. Kant...did not. The principle of equality is one which can arise independently, without the application of the First Formulation. Was murder first viewed as evil due to the application of deontological philosophies, or more obvious, basic moral principles? Further, my main point of contention is with the Second Formulation, which certainly does not apply to U.S. legal documents, Constitution or otherwise. Social contract theory is far more applicable, as it constitutes the basis of the Constitution. -Locke and Kant are entirely incompatible. Locke's theories have a utilitarian basis. Kant's theories have a deontilogical basis. Utilitarianism and deontology are opposites (justification through ends vs. means). -We retain many of the original Constitutional principles. However, feel free to demonstrate the effect of the Second Formulation on our "current Constitutional principles". -Of course we are discussing the sale of items without permission. -The immorality of the Unabomber's actions justify his treatment. -Involuntary imprisonment is just, as is the sale of possessions in order to reimburse victims. The justice system, which is the acting body concerned, ought to uphold justice. -The resolution does not violate the First Amendment. The Unabomber is free to express his ideas as he wishes, this freedom is not restricted. In fact, he is free to restate the ideas detailed in his writings before the national press. The confiscation of assets, which happen to include writings, does not constitute a violation. In fact, these actions do not abridge anything, per my opponent's definition. -We are not violating freedom of speech. My opponent has dropped all points regarding his possessions as a whole, and therefore concedes these points. His only remaining case regards the First Amendment "violation", which I have refuted.