BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Private school is better/safer than public school

The public school system has numberous issuesTeacher Tenure - this protects any poor quality teacher from being fired. This also terminates a teacher's fear of being fired, so even a good teacher can get lazy.Students are assigned to the public school in their area. This forces some students to attend a more corrupt, or dangerous school, and ensures that the school will have enough students to stay open. The school can change the additude of the students, and lead them to failure.Common Core Standards - the poor teachers that tenure protects are now educating their students with common core standards. It would be bad enough if all teachers were at least average in performance. Common core is widely known as not being very efficient, and soon will be limmiting students. Government officials could soon start poisoning the minds of students with common core standardsPublic schools can be under-funded, which can lead to cancellation of activities like choir, band, dance, and theater. Over-achieving, intellingent kids are often a minority. They will be discouraged among students, and taught that smart means unpopular. There are many popular misconceptions and myths about private schoolStudents can use money to pass a class, or get good grades - this is a common, and hilarious myth. Private schools have very strict rules about giving a teacher any money, even as a gift. Especially in middle and high school, where students are more likely to try cheting. If you were to ask anyone at a private school, student or teacher, they would all tell you that no one tries to use money to pass classes.All students in private school are rich, and upper class - this is a steriotype. Students in private school are mainly upper-middle class, or somewhere in that area. Some students even get work-study oppritunities, which lets lower-class students attend private school for cheaper. They only have to help with a little work, like helping to clean after school. Low-8ncome students also can receive free lunch. Of coarse, some students in private school are richer. What other school would these students go to?Students are all very sheltered from the real world - a very common steriotype. Since most people go to public school, private school students will live in neiborhoods with public school students, and can become friends with them. All private school students are aware of the problems low class families face. They learn from the news, from public school friends, and from common knolwdge. Anyway, is being sheltered from drugs, alcohol, and other illegal activity really a bad thing? In a private school, students have a safe, pure, and healthy learning environment.
Private school is better/safer than public school

Public schools are better. Public schools are better than private because of diversity, having to pay to go to school which is exclusive, and the teachers are better educated so their students are better educated. Most people think that PRIVATE SCHOOLS are better because of what they have heard. But what they don't know is the personal difference between the schools (meaning the never experienced PRIVATE SCHOOL). As of now since almost is rises, (price, population, etc) , public school is helpful to those people who cannot afford private school, and specially tuition fees of the private school has a possibility to rise unlike the public school is consistent. Some people who was studying at the private school, mostly they are using their money to pass the subject, they pay their instructors, unlike public school are fare for all students. Public school is advantage as now, because almost 70% of the population is poor and 30% is rich. Public schools provide students with an opportunity to interact with people from different backgrounds and learn from that. Private school students mainly come form upper class families and are limited to what they are exposed to. When private school students move onto a career this could pose a problem because they have no idea the problems middle and low class families face.
Private school is better/safer than public school

Public schools do have more diversity, but that is purely chance. Anyone who can pay is welcome at a private school. And, yes, you do have to pay for private school. It is not just to be exclusive, though. Private schools don't get government funding, so they have to find a way to pay the teachers. This is why the teachers at private school are payed less. If they wanted to raise the pay of a private teacher, they would have to raise tuition. It is all in a perfect balance, and in no way meant to exclude people. I have attended private school my whole life, so I speak from experience and facts, not just what I have heard. Tests do indicate that it is much more likely for a public school student to be bullied that a private school student. It is proven that public schools have more problems with physical conflicts, verbal abuse of teachers, student disrespect for teachers, and parental lack of involvement. From experience, I can tell you also that it is true. Comparing my private school friends and my public school friends, I can see a substantial difference in behavior. My public school friends tend to either gossip more, or be bullied more. This is never a real problen with my private school friends.As far as education goes, it is hard to tell who gets a better one. Based off a single student, you will get varried answers. Hovever, the average test scores for a private school are generally higher than those of a public school. Is is because of teachers and environment. Private school teaching careers are hard to come by, so only a teacher who loves their job will search for a private school career. Naturally, those who love their job will be better at is. So, you can conclude that a private school gives you a better edcation.
Private school is better/safer than public school

Private schools give you a better education than public schools. The teachers at public schools are paid more, so most people who seek a teaching career will want a job at one of them. Anyone who decides to teach at a private school knows that the pay is worse, and they teach at them because they love their job. So, they will be better at their job. Also, if you attend a private school, you have to pay tuition. The school has to give you a better education, than, if they want you to stay. So naturally, private school gives you a better education. Private schools are also safer than public schools. Anyone who attends private school has to pay tuition, so the students will all naturally be safer. I am not saying that poor people are not safe, or that they are meaner. I only mean that the students will have been raised in a better environment, so they will know that bullying is bad, and that drugs are bad. Not all of them, but a majority. Many people also attend private school for religious reasons, so most of the students will be nicer, and more moral. Nicer students means a nicer school, so private school is safer than public school.
Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults

Please think about the following questions.Can a question be a lie?Can an instruction be a lie?How much, in debating, do we rely on our assessment of participants' characters when judging debates? Would we accept their bare assertions or would we need logic and evidence to convince us?What difference does knowing I'm a liar make when you're reading this? Are you reading it more critically and carefully, for example? Is that a good or a bad thing?Look at Pro's definition of a lie: an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined. It cannot be automatically taken for granted that whatever a liar states is categorically false...How is that different from any other unsupported statement that might be offered in a debate?Wouldn't you always keep in mind the possibility that a debater might be, if not lying, exaggerating, misrepresenting or simply mistaken about the truth? Do you even believe in "truth" as such?How is your reading relationship with me altered by the knowledge that I'm a liar? If it's not altered very much, consider what the word "liar" is. Is it anything more than an expression of disapproval and hostility? If it is not, please conclude that it is an insult of the most ordinary kind.
Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults

This topic originated from long, tedious discussions between PRO/CON. I adamantly stick to PRO on this position, whereas CON is not fully convinced. This debate aims to further convince CON of PRO's case.Resolution:Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults.Definitions: liar noun a person who tells lies.http://dictionary.reference.com... lie noun a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth. http://dictionary.reference.com... insult noun an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront. http://dictionary.reference.com... I will add that a "lie" for the purposes of this debate would be an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined. It cannot be automatically taken for granted that whatever a liar states is categorically false, as by assuming such, truth value can be determined. Example:1+1 =/= 2Without this additional stipulation, if a liar stated the above, then we would know that 1+1=2. By adding the stipulation, all we know is that 1+1 =/= 2 cannot be taken at face value, that it could be true or it could be false.Rules:The rules on this debate will be somewhat unique in order to prove the point:1) For the purposes of this debate (and only for the purposes of this debate), CON is a liar. I have the highest regards for CON's personal integrity...this particular rule in the debate is a strict hypothetical.2) CON will begin Round #1 by stating exactly "Begin your case." This is because CON will be incapable of accepting this debate by stating "I accept," as CON is a liar.3) This debate will be judged on the strict basis of Tabula Rasa, meaning that what is stated in the debate (including round #1) will be taken as prima facie true...unless of course one side is deemed a liar. Refer to rule #1.I hope this proves to be an interesting thought experiment. ---This will be a NO SCORING debate. I ask that anyone who reads this debate not assign points to either side, although as always you are more than welcome to participate in discussion, further debate, and to leave an opinion as to who you thought was the victor.This is not a trial, and thus the weight of the verdict is not important. What is important is to determine which case is more convincing. ---3 rounds, 4,000 characters per round.
should tumblr be closed down

Ladies and gentlemen, a troll is among us. And you know what I blame for this? Tumblr. Therefore I will be arguing that Tumblr should be closed down. Because of:-Cyberbullying- A direct link to short attention spans- Con being an example of what Tumblr does to people.1. CyberbullyingOne in three teenagers have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetime, and twenty-five percent experience is constantly (. http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...). Tumblr, being a place where you can blog about generally whatever you want, inevitably can't stop all bullying on the site. Therefore, Tumblr is a platform for cyberbullying and must be shut down to put an end to it.2. Weapons of Mass DistractionAs technology improves and it becomes easier to connect with the world, attention spans become shorter. Tumblr is commonly used by Americans, and as seen here, (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...), ADHD is most prevalent in the United States. To call this a coincidence would be just silly. Tumblr should be shut down because is has a direct relation to Attention Deficit Disorder.3. ConMy opponent's initial argument, using an unnecessary amount of exclamation points (one of which being a number one) proves what Tumblr does to people. Is this what is to come of society? Not if I have anything to say about it. We can't people turn into this, and thus we must shut down Tumblr. Conclusion:Therefore, because Tumblr is a platform for cyberbullying, a weapon of mass distraction, and a monster that can turn people into zombies, I stand affirmative to shutting down Tumblr for good. Look at this poor individual. What if this happened to you? As humans, it is our moral duty to end this monstrosity.
Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant

Pro's voice on green resources is admirable but he made numerous mistakes in his arguments. Pro's ConcessionFirstly, my alternate resolution was to consider Co-Generation as what was also advocated by the IEA in order to disapprove the resolution of replacing. Pro concedes to this resolution as he says in his R3 argument:"Yes, I agree that we should go hand in hand with all power generating plants, i. e, We can have Wind,Solar and thermal all together for power generation and when solar and wind efficiency and many other factor increases we may reduce the thermal plants. .. I agree for that with Brother Relativist. " Untouched RefutationsI am responsible for denouncing the resolution with proper reasons and I have rightly so. Pro did not respond to my refutations at all as he continued with his energy efficiency analysis instead so I assume that my refutations have successfully nullified his argument. This includes:a)Global Warming Myth(By Carter) in response to his greenhouse gases. b)Crisis of Renewable Energy(As an additional problem to green energy, to shift support towards thermal)-Extinction of various types of species as a result of destroying 3,500 acres(9000 for Alta Wind Farm) of forests. c)Economic Problems for poor countries -The Brandt report accurately elaborates how poor countries are, thus unable to afford green energy (which is in opposition to the resolution as it advocates replacements, which are very expensive)d)Pro's energy efficiency analysis (Elaborated below)These are my main oppositional arguments and they are left virtually untouched by Pro and with no responses, I hereby conclude that my argument have successfully denounced his resolution. Other Minor detailsThroughout this debate, my opponent seems so fixiated on energy capacities. He devoted his last round to prove that it is at least 3-5 times(instead of 5-6). Even his round 3 argument was devoted to this same concept. Regardless, Thermal Power plants still yields more energy than the combination of both Perovo and Alta, thus it is more reasonable to adopt conventional measures. Pro made an analysis on solar cells but fails to provide how it is linked to the resolution as he did not provide a proper evaluation. Pro claims that thermal power plants should be 2km away from homes, the same should be done with Wind. The main point is to find incentives on why wind should replace thermal, if they are both floating on the same boat, then there is no reason to adopt the resolution as both are essentially the sameConclusionMy refutations are my main contentions for disapproving the resolution. Without any response, his argument is nullified along with the resolution. I'd like to thank him for his politeness, one which is rare considering that youtube comments have been my standards for decency as well as his proposed resolution and I hope our debate entertained him as it did to me. Thank You And Have A Nice Day.
Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant

Sorry for the delay.Brother has misunderstood the energy generation by the 3 plants specified by him.Alta wind Power Station produces 1320MW/monthPerovo solar plant produces 100MW/month (This is correct)Kashima plant produces 4400Sources: http://www.energy.ca.gov...http://enipedia.tudelft.nl...1320+100=1420 (not 900MW)nearly equal to approx. 1450MW/month So, Kashima is producing 3-3.5 times more than solar and wind.As I have said earlier, we are still in developing mode, we will Insh'Allah try to increase the energy production by solar and wind Plants by the proposed new technologies. When the energy production increases we will slowly substitute Solar and wind in place of Thermal.Brother has misunderstood by the economical aspect;Solar plants are much cheaper that thermal plant; this is due to: 1. No moving parts involved, hence less losses 2. it needs less components than thermal Solar panels can be planted over a house for that individual home itself and reduce the thermal consumption.In this way we may reduce the thermal plants.As adopted in Germany.It depends on you; whether to help others or not. Let us assume I am a rich person, I plant a couple of panels on top of my house and my energy consumption is less than the energy production then I will send the remaining energy to the poor instead of my neighbour if he is rich.We need to understand our brothers and help each other. In that way there is no different world will be created. Forget about the people what they are doing. You do what is said by the Humanity.Hence, my conclusion is I agree with the brother to go hand in hand with all types of energy production plants even hydro; and substitute the green production in place of harmful production provided that it's efficiency and energy production is almost matching or it is suitable to supply to homes.Thank you!
Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant

We have lots of Thermal Power Plant all over the world. About 40% of the worlds electricity comes from coal. The energy efficiency of a thermal power plant is typically 33% - 48%.The waste products released by a thermal power plant are carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as other substances such as nitrogen, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and (in the case of coal-fired plants) fly ash and mercury.All these gases are green house gases which pollutes the environment and especially causes Ozone layer depletion.We all know about the negative effects of thermal power plant with reference to air pollution but let us take its land and transmission side effects.1) As thermal plants should be located far away from the load, Transmission line increases leading to loss in power distribution.2) The area required to build a thermal power plant is quite big.3) It has lot of components such as heaters, boilers and even flue tower etc.4) Due to all of this components, the installing cost is high also the capital cost for the land.CAN SOLAR AND WIND REPLACE THERMAL?In my opinion yes, up to a certain level. Considering the above points 1) Solar plant can be located near the load, hence transmission line cost decreases. 2) The area required to build Solar and Wind Plant is less compared to Thermal plant, hence capital cost is reduced. 3) It has less components, ant the components used in Solar is very Compact.Any Disadvantages? 1) Solar can be installed in areas where there is a high peak sunlight. 2) Wind plant should be located where there are high pressure winds. Now, we can combine Solar for day time and wind for night time to provide 24 hrs electricity production.The disadvantages of Solar and wind can be overcome by proper arrangement and storage of electrical energy in batteries.
Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant

It is important to clarify first before we begin. Take Note: Pro specified his rules in comments "Round 1 is just acceptance. You can present your argument in 2nd round. That is why i have selected 5 rounds. " Definition Replace- "to take or fill the place of" . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... In this case, the resolution is vying to replace thermal power plant with so called "safe" and "renewable" energy, that is solar and wind. It is nice to have renewable energy but it comes with a price, a price I'm not willing to trade thermal power plants for considering the level of technology we are currently having. Arguments will be on the second round as per our agreement. Thank you and you may present your case.
Morality is not Relative

The one moral standard that follows in all cultures and society was made up by our ancestors, of course. With the people in Africa or South America for example, their ancestors were the ones who created this one moral standard for all. Besides me there are many famous authors that state that there is one rule, one law, one judgement, for all men. Okay I understand the point and the definition of what is murder but my point is that in every culture if you commit murder you will face major consequences. it does not matter who you are and where you come from. There is no such culture or society that praises murder and lets each individual get away with bloody hands. Like I have stated in my previous argument: The beliefs and the standards from the past will remain the same no matter what. If everything in these different cultures has been going normal and perfectly fine since the standards were put into place, then why try to change them. No moral relativity means no modifying any rules (or standards). Oka yes, in some cases it is wrong to do one thing and right to do the other but the fact is that nothing and no one will change that. Those morals and/or rules will not change for the better or for the worse. Why? Because there is one, and only one moral that we all need to follow and go by. My opinion or anyone else' opinion will not change anything.
Morality is not Relative

I see that you insist that there is one moral standard which everyone follows, however you didn't answer my question of who made the moral standard and what exactly is it. By cultures speaking different languages, it shows the human behavior varies and with the variation comes different ideals and beliefs on what is important in the society. The example you put in place, murder, that is deem morally wrong in every society is correct however each culture has a different outlook on murder. Murder is the illegal killing on a innocent person however different cultures have their own opinion on what murder is. A culture in which kills another person after you lost your relative or friend will be deemed morally wrong and be considered murder in our society and culture however the culture where the practice takes place this action is deem morally correct and legal. If it is legal then it is not murder according to the definiton I just stated. Another example is the Eskimo culture where they practice infanticide. That is a illegal in the USA however the Eskimos follow it in their culture and it is morally aceptable. Each culture has different standards since there is no one standard to compare them with. By comparing your culture with others you are making your culture the standard and believe it is completely correct.
Morality is not Relative

I still disagree with you because even though the cultures may speak in different languages, we all still share the same morals code. Nothing changes in this case. If its been going good since the beginning then there is no need to change it. We all follow the exact same moral code, the real moral code. I will use an example murder. In most if not every culture you will be punished for murder. This has been the case since the beginning and it will NOT change. There is a reason why the certain moral behaviors and standards were put into place. I still do not agree that there are various standards. There is only one in which we ll have to look up everyday.