BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
role of education in preparing students for the modern world

The purpose of education in today's society is to prepare students for the challenges of life in the career world. Because of the many different paths to success that exist today, different students need different outcomes from their experiences in the educational system. Rather than inculcating a set list of competencies or ideas, education must prepare students to think critically and select the opportunities that they need in order to succeed in their chosen paths.Because there are so many different careers available, the role of education is not the same for any two paths. Students who believe that a career as a mechanic is ideal for them need basics in the core areas but then need to start specializing in technical areas when they reach the later years of high school. Those who are heading for law school must plan on achieving the highest grades possible in high school followed by an undergraduate degree in the humanities, a college job in a law firm, and then a degree from law school. Those wanting to be entrepreneurs in the computer field have a more eclectic path, picking and choosing from programming and other technical course selections to find training and expertise -- not to mention connections -- in their areas of interest. More over it is based on the career of the individual, but it will also inculcate values and scientific reasons which might help the individual in the process of decision making in the future.
Conservatism (Pro) versus Libertarianism (Con)

Libertarianism: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens Conservatism: The holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership and socially conservative ideas. Pro must be a Conservative and against Libertarianism. Round one is acceptance only Round two is opening statement Round three is arguments Round four is counter arguments Round five is conclusion Cite your sources, be civil, and no logical fallacies.
Everyone Lies

Ahahahaha I remember this one http://www.debate.org...Unfortunately... I still win. |||||||||||||||||(Wait for it...)|||||||||||||||||Chuck Norris does not do any of those things. First, he never lies (to the standard definition) because Chuck Norris can only speak the truth. Next, he always stand, never resting. He does not need to have sex; he makes baby just by spitting in a chick's a$$. He is never inactive, he's always doing something, even when he looks like he's inactive he's actually destroying thousands of galaxies in his mind. Chuck Norris has no direction, direction is Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris has so much effect it's not really an "Effect" anymore, it's more like the affects of his prescence. He does not "have a place in relation to something else", everything else has relation to Chuck Norris. Go Chuck Norris. He never lies. Accuse him of such, and he'll let you see what "lying forever" really means.
Everyone Lies

You are going to hate me but here it comes... THE BOMB!!! You knew that this was going to be a troll debate when I put this in the "Entertainment" section and said: "Who will be courageous enough to argue against the claim?"Funny enough, you didn't ask for clarification...I tricked you into aguing the wrong thing! LOLLet me explain: Based on http://www.merriam-webster.com... LIE:to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal positionto assume a horizontal positionto reside temporarilyto have sexual intercourseto remain inactive to be in a helpless or defenseless state to be or remain in a flat or horizontal position upon a broad support to have direction to occupy a certain relative place or position to have a place in relation to something else to have an effect through mere presence, weight, or relative position to remain at anchor or becalmedto have place remain Now... which one did I mean to say? Hmmmmmm...How about, ALL OF THEM !No matter what proof you give, you will always be wrong...
Everyone Lies

Definition: to create a false or misleading impressionhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...The person doesn't need to talk... Personal Connection:In my school we have a "brain-dead" student. She is lead everyhere usually by a wheelchair. Occasionaly she would look like she is walking to where she needs to be; but then she would turn around and walk the other way. This is false or misleading impression.Plus, we don't know what happens in a "brain-dead" person. For all we know they could be lying to someone in their dreams! My case stands...
I am the only person with free will!

You should have known from the start. The thing is, I can make the same argument. So I am the only person with free will, and you aren't. Yes, it is a trap. Now, we can't BOTH be the ONLY person with free will. Either your argument is valid, and we both have free will, or your argument is invalid, and you either don't have free will, or there are others who have free will. Each way, you are wrong.
I am the only person with free will!

Sorry for the confusion! I am the only human with free will. Your (and everybody else's) paths are completly mapped out and you can't change them! I right now am choosing to type the word watermelon, then erase it! You have will do something or not. It is "mapped out in the stars" that you will either type it or not, and delete it or not, you will only do what is already planned for you. I am the main character of this story, while everyone else are merely side characters.
I am the only person with free will!

Well, what if YOU are just wrong? What if YOU were scripted to say what you said this round? I can make the same argument too! Thus, the trap. From last round: We can't BOTH be the ONLY person with free will. Either your argument is valid, and we both have free will, or your argument is invalid, and you either don't have free will, or there are others who have free will. Each way, your statement is FALSE.
God exists.

My opponent disagrees with my definition of God. However, I specified in the first round that it was the default definition for this debate, and that my opponent would need to have me approve any other definition before accepting the debate. Therefore, God for the purposes of this debate should be defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person, as stipulated in the first round. My opponent presents a battery of arguments for the claim that this definition is self contradictory, which I happily accept as sound and as providing strong if not conclusive support for my (Con) position. In response to Craig's kalam cosmological argument, I would say that the universe did not begin to exist. Time is defined in terms of the universe in physics, so there was no time at which the universe did not exist, which means it did not begin to exist by definition. My opponent's Leibnizian cosmological argument overlooks the possibility that the universe exists necessarily. He gives this status to God anyway, so we may as well give it to what we know to exist, namely the universe. The only reason my opponent gives for thinking that the cause of the universe (which has not been established in the first place) was conscious is the watchmaker argument and the fine tuning argument. However, we tell whether something is designed by comparing it with things we know have been made by humans, and the universe does not look like anything that we know has been made by a human, so the inference cannot be justified. In addition, my opponent has only argued for a conscious cause of the universe. He has made no attempt to argue that the cause was omniscient, omnipotent, or all good, which are the defining traits of God as stipulated in round 1. He is trying to win the debate by setting out a much less ambitious definition that I would not have agreed to, since it has much less religious or practical significance than the default definition.
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists.By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises.God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1] If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors.[1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
God exists.

Due to my opponent not bringing forth any evidence for his position, and merely attacking mine, he is much like creationists trying to poke holes in evolution. Proving evolution to be false of course does not make creationism true. He still needs evidence that his position is correct, and he has provided none. He says that he needs none, but to meet his burden of proof, he needs evidence. Imagine a madman walking the city streets, shouting that God is dead and that we have killed him. Of course, evidence is necessary for this, Nietzsche knew this, and that is why he not only rebutted arguments but tried to propagate his own. Unlike Nietzsche, my opponent doesn't even attempt to prove his own position, he just says that I haven't proved mine. However, I have provided a plethora of arguments, trying to meet my burden of proof. I at the very least, put my feet in the theological water.For his claim to be true that gods probably do not exist, he must have evidence against all the gods of history, not merely the God of Christianity. It doesn't matter if I don't prove Yahweh if Allah exists. Both gods are required to have evidence against them. If it is true, that gods don't exist, then there must be evidence for this claim. My opponent provides nil. I do try to accept my burden of proof by providing arguments for the motion.Let's go back to the design arguments. If you were part of an uncontacted tribe and saw a helicopter off the coast of your island or such, you would, in fact, know it was designed, though you might not blame this on humans.I didn't accuse you of committing an argument from ignorance fallacy and the black swan fallacy. I said there is a possibility that you did. There is a difference, I personally do not know enough of your own personal beliefs to know if you are a strong or weak atheist, and the difference between the two is substantial. I didn't intentionally mean to use an argument from authority by citing names. I typically do this so people know what I am referring to. I do this practice literally all the time whether it be a debate or not. And this is only fallacious if one cites an authority, who isn't an authority, or if someone says that something is right merely since they are an authority. And I did neither of those. You could accuse me of name dropping, but I really don't intend to do so.My opponent has said that my arguments have not been compelling. I beg to differ. Loads of people have found these arguments compelling and that is why apologists often use them. What I think he meant to say that they are not logically valid, nor sound. In the end, I must thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate him. He was a great debater, and I would do the same again if so asked.
Unicorns, Rainbows, Obama, and Randomness

You bring up a strong horse just to be shot and turned to glue. The problem was here, e=mc^2 means electricity=muppets*cocoa^2 after adding the beans you will recieve your deploma. Now we all know that Pablo Picasso was around during the chicken dynasty. Using this inormation we can safely assume that he was indeed drawing a man harnessing a camel BUT, he didn't make it clear what dingle dong the camel was on. This is a simple mathamagicical error. Oil is the ninth highest king of the court while awesomesauce is the third(hence the problem). Now I would like to tell a short story of my golden days. The year was 1337 and I was the prime age of Q. I had lost my sock during the battle of Chickahara when the chicklets invaded my base. I was very unimpressed so I shot myself in the head. The end.
Unicorns, Rainbows, Obama, and Randomness

Thank you for your response. I will start with your questions first. In the second one you state that you met a man named Herby Pete. However, if we rearrange some letters, add some new ones, and cut off the bottom of the "y" we get HERBERT the PERVERT, which leads me to conclude that during that unfortunate incident you must have been delirious and didn't realize that in fact rain comes from the alternate dimension Iceland, where they mass produce bad TV shows and ship them here. However if I refer to your previous argument I can point out that the chickacorn managed to reproduce with a platypus to create the animal we know today as the "human," but this strange and diverse species is known to arrange interesting patterns in the sand with sticks while calculating the number of bricks in the Great Wall of China. If we also look into the history of Apple we realize that it wasn't Steve Jobs, but in fact it was Sir Elton John that created the personal paper shredder. I would also like my opponent to answer these five questions. 1. If E=MC^2 then why doesn't electricity=mom*cookies^2? 2. The Mona Lisa obviously depicts a man harnessing a camel, but what does Pablo Picasso mean by this? 3. Why doesn't oil mix with awesomesauce when added to a container of Internet?
Unicorns, Rainbows, Obama, and Randomness

Thank you for the thought. As I read your argument I noticed a fatal flaw, in the 1700's the IPhone ELEVEN was at the top of the charts. Now you speak of witchcraft and wizardry but forget the fact that in 1433 the unicorn was actually found to be a chicken. Renamed the chickacorn it was thought to be sir Runwolt Wilson. Now the hair built into the shoe was, yes, bad for consumption but only in Mexican infants. In the 1945 study done by sir Wilpern Goooooolshire unicorn hair can actually stimulate the heroinioisipus gene in almost everyone. In your next post I would like you to answer these questions three. 1. If once a squirrel, but yet a dog, why does it rain in September? 2. As I was walking through the woods at the prime age of 9 I met a kind old man named Herby Pete. Now this man seemed to be a little off so I decided to ask him a question. I asked, riddle me this, dungus blast? The man got very angry then exploded into a thousand shrimp. So why was his beard so nice? 3. Who would win In a fight, god or the entire cast of glee?
Unicorns, Rainbows, Obama, and Randomness

Thank you. Due to the affects of randomness on a man's life I will prove that Converse shoes don't make you run faster. The lining in the shoes made of unicorn hair is not as healthy to ones diet as one would assume. The fact that technology has such a small impact on today's society unlike the 1700's when everyone had the Iphone 12 proves my point that no one really knows who or what Tom Cruise is. If astrology really can predict the future than why do we all live in houses? The stars can't predict our future which proves that people who play Minecraft aren't nerds. On the contrary, they probably study politics and strive to hold some high office of power in the Amazon Jungle. So as the Pro side of this argument I must continue to argue, against all odds, that Justin Bieber really is a boy. However you must understand that we do actually have to eat and drink to survive and everyone knows how much Americans hate eating. I mean look at the anorexia rate in the country! Why do we continue to live in fear of nuclear attack when we now that the atomic bomb is only powerful enough to destroy a single anthill. If we really wanted to, and we have enough money and materials to do so, we could build gigantic shelters that protect Obama. I think he is a hero and he has come to save us. Health care is a blessing to us all and even when Obama is wrong, he makes his own truth. So in conclusion we should all devour our Gerbils and accept that fact that I'm going to lose this debate.
"Illegal" Downloading

"I use quotations around Illegal because I ask you, is it?" That would depend on what you download and its copyright status. "I pay a monthly fee for a service rendered to me. This service I receive is the internet. In turn what I get from the internet should be considered paid for as I am paying for a monthly service." No. You pay an ISP which allows you to access via the internet to sites where those sites have no other requirements for access. It is analogous to paying a toll to use a private road. The toll gives you access to the road, not additional controlling property rights to every car that uses the road. Likewise paying entry into an art gallery does not give you instant control over the artwork that is displayed inside. Content may be free to view/listen/download or it may not. It depends on the status of the information itself. For that information that is protected via copyright, the property owner of that information has every right not to have their intellectual property stolen from them via downloading. The proper purpose of law is to protect individual rights. Property is one such right.
God is real

https://www. Nationalgeographic. Com/science/space/solar-system/the-sun/ The link above is a scientific explanation of how the sun works. In simple terms, The sun contains hydrogen that fuse together to form helium. This fusion releases a lot of energy which is seen by the light and heat that emanates from the sun. That's all it is. The sun has no consciousness and it does not consciously create anything. Therefore, Calling the sun a "God" is unjustified. A God is defined as a conscious creator which the sun is not.
No money for education

We spent 536 billion for education in '04: http://www.ed.gov... That's over fifteen hundred bucks for every man, woman and child in this ignorant country. If you had to decide how to spend your share, how would you do it? We will need American flags and pledges of allegiance. Not. University presidents raking in six figures. Not. Interference from Big Business? You'll probably give it to them anyway for some degree-at-home scam. The greatest obstacle to learning is not ignorance. It is the illusion of learning. No money for education. No federal, state, county, borough, municipality money may be spent for education. It shall be unlawful to give or receive money to pretend that you know more about something than anyone else. Some college professors will be OK as long as there is no one in the class smarter than they are. All teachers, principals and admisistrators are to be fired immediately. The Department of Education will be dismantled. Application of this to churches is beyond the scope of this debate. The terms LD format, criteria, value, contention, crystallization, CX, etc refer to portions of an argument for purpose of scoring and time management for oral high school debating tournaments and have absolutely no force of rule here. You may find the formal criteria useful. Any rules must be in writing and agreed to by all participants before the beginning of play. This is intergalactic law. The No Child Left Behind Act is a plan to entice students to join the military with false promises and outright lies. For more info check out the picket line at your local recruiting office. And speaking of religion how about this privately funded educational system. The government (theoretically at least) has nothing to do with it. It provides free education to anyone that wants it because those doing the educating care about educating and not because the government pays them. Home schooling also, compared to our educational system, beats it like the family mule. Now this money that we now waste on education will be immediately available for learning and it is a lot. The educational system not only teaches but certifies that you have been taught. It issues a certificate stating that you are guaranteed to have learned. It spends a great amount of time and energy making sure that you learn. And it is all wasted anyway because students are entering college who lack basic reading skills. Newspapers have to be written at the fourth grade reading level. We call a doctor for dandruff. We do no have the math skills to even shop intelligently, not to mention manage our fourteen-digit debt. An alarming number of Americans cannot read at all, take pills without even knowing what they do and believe Elvis is still alive. We know less about the world than anyone else in it. People in other countries who have no formal education at all and still speak several languages are making fun of Americans who do not know or care where Iran is and can't even commit suicide without assistance. Something needs to be done about this failed system. What does our educationl system teach? http://www.nytimes.com... Hate.
No money for education

Just keep the buildings maintained and let the people use them and manage their use. If they want to just play bingo that is just fine. Why don't the universities cancal classes and just have $port$ since it is what they have done anyway by cutting off funding and letting Monsanto tell Berkeley to fire a prof who showed that there might be adverse effects to GE. Big business is telling us what to teach and ruining any chance of getting an education. We need to free education and give it back to the people.