BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School reduces the inclination for learning

School has tough deadlines and many assignments. After a while, it is impossible to do all the assignments without sacrificing on sleep, entertainment, social life, sports, extra-curricular activities and what not. Many students do not want to give up on them and therefore start not doing one or more assignments. Plus there is so much homework that a student wouldn't want to do any extra learning. School saturates the student capacity for learning, and then converts it into rote learning. Students often develop laziness which interferes with their learning. A student doesn't learn for acquiring knowledge but just for passing tests and getting that degree. There are some people who still remain naturally inquisitive and would wish to learn more, but the majority of the students are not inclined to learn. There was a time when students were interested in work given by school, but as they go up the ladder the situation worsens. Ask any high or middle school student if they do extra research into science, maths, history, geography during their free time by their own free will, most of them will say "why the hell will I do that?". Plus, school mayn't be a reliable preparation for the real word as school isn't specialized. It requires you to be a jack of all trades and complete about 5-10 assignments of different topics at the same time with good quality. In a job, you would at least be doing relevant and useful things, and money would be a motivation. Moreover, you may like or be good or want to be good at your job. In school suppose I don't consider history useful, I still have to do it to pass. In the real word, I certainly won't become a historian if I don't want to do anything with history. I think it is because of school I lost the want to learn.
School reduces the inclination for learning

The Argument that school does not provide an inclination for learning is too vague and is indeed a logically vainglorious argument. Although it is in a large argument that schools pressurize children with heavy academic topics and strict deadlines, it should be in one's mind to accept the fact that these pressures and deadlines do provide the children a clear instruction of how they should organize their lives and how they should be able to match up with expectations of the world. I agree that children are disinterested in learning and so am I sometimes as a student. But discipline must be enforced and cannot always be in the favour of its mentee. Hence I believe schools do provide an inclination to learning and they do not reduce it. Even if they reduce it, in the long run students will appreciate the toughness of schools back then.
The Beatles were the most innovative band ever

this is not a fair debate do to the way you placed my position in this debate and your understanding of art/music... art/music cant be debate as a fact because there is no right answer to your topic of the The Beatles being the most innovative band ever, it only depends on your opinion to they're form of music.. you see if i want to cheat and say that the Beatles WERE the most innovative band by your wording, i could say that you already lost because you believe there currently is a more innovate band... but i like to debate in a fair way and argue a topic such if the Beatles deserve the title for the best band in rock history ever, not a subjective topic that you placed me into....i can not argue do the fact you made this debate solely on your opinion... your reason listed above not only prove your side...but there's is no theory or opinion i can place on this topic that says im right...this is a utter waste of a debate unless you change the topic in a fairer sense.... thank for you consideration...
The Beatles were the most innovative band ever

i would just like to start this debate off by saying im not Beatles fan and i have nothing against them personally. my first point is based on my understanding of the meaning of your debate topic this debate is trick because it is very very subjective The Beatles were the most innovative band ever ......innovative...... to invent or begin to apply (methods, ideas, etc) http://dictionary.reference.com... technically the Beatles did not invent music.. but merely advanced its diversity in the sense its diffrent generes it covers. 2 -Apart from the delicious slice of cello-driven melancholy that is "Eleanor Rigby," I cannot say that any Beatles song really speaks to me. I've listened to nearly the entire catalogue and no sparks. Therefore, I am not a fan. This doesn't mean that I don't respect the talent within the band and the transformative power their lyrics have had over so many generations..... I just cannot lie and say that I love The Beatles.Given my honesty and my assumption that musical tastes were personal, I was taken aback by the violent reactions to my frankness. I've always been entitled to like whichever musical act I pleased...... 3- this debate is unfair because music (the beatles) are a form of art and there are no facts that prove if the Beatles are good or bad only opinions i would like to thank my opposition for viewing my opinion...... my favorite album by the Beatles enjoy!! http://www.youtube.com... vote for me!!
Should we shut down NASA

The fact is that NASA takes money from the government so that they can go into space, and we could be using that money for far more important things, and going into space would not benefit humanity. how would it, we don't have unlimited oxygen and being in space can do bad things to peoples bones, also there is no planet that could sustain human life. (that we no of) and even if there is we would not be able to get humans to that planet.
gay marriage

Finish high school, then finish college, then we'll talk. It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that you CAN be FIRED in MANY states JUST for being LGBT. If you don't know that, you don't belong in here. Based on your PREVIOUS comment you think it SHOULD be LEGAL for employers to FIRE and housing to EVICT the LGBT community simply for being LGBT. And since that's the case, you are a BIGOT and not worth dialogue.
Women are not always the victim

Well you're right basically about everything. Yes my topic was a pretty obvious but like I said, my reasoning behind it is the many people who always tell me that "all men rape" and "all women are victims". All of the points you just made are right and well I can't argue them. I guess in conclusion I think we both know women are not 100% victim all the time and what I said about women not having it worse than men (in cases of sexual assault and abuse), may have been a bit wrong and I think that you clearly proved that to me. Well I have no argument.
Women are not always the victim

You know, I have to admit your debate topic is a little too obvious because it's like saying "Not all Muslims are terrorists" which of course is true and trying to convince otherwise is very difficult because it would be hard to generalize. I don't think there's a single statistic that will show 100% of women are victims of a specific criminal activity. But I'll do my best to answer your topic that already has the answer written on it. My fictional examples can happen in real life. The Railroad Killer, Angel Maturino Resendiz, was a brutal serial killer and disgusting person. He killed 15 people (1), though I highly doubt that number. He very likely had killed and murdered more. Out of all his victims, only one has known to have survived and she is Holly Pendleton. Holly was raped and beaten severely but fortunately, she survived and lived to tell the tale. But yes, Holly is among the MANY survivors of brutal murder. What about gang rape? There's only one article I found about a man getting gang raped but almost all of the gang rape articles have women as the victim of a very monstrous, disordered attack. The infamous 2012 New Delhi gang rape proves that women can be vulnerable being left alone with a group of men than if a man is left with a group of men (2). What about model exploitation? Since women are seen as more vulnerable, they become the targets of pedophiliac photographers. What about one of the most advocated one, equal payment? Jennifer Lawrence claimed that she and Amy Adams were paid less than their male co-stars in the 2013 film, American Hustler? (3) SOURCES: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org... 3) http://time.com...
Women are not always the victim

Well the movie and novel part you are very much correct. But I am more focused on real life rather than fictional occurrences, although I see your point and even if I did want to argue that topic, I would probably lose since you make many valid points. All the points you make are valid and correct including the statistics. But my point is women are not always the victim in every situation. I may have not made that 100% clear and that is my bad. You are very right about things that happened in the past and in that time women did have it worse. But now days women do have human rights as of men do too. My main reason for starting his debate is a lot of feminists who constantly accuse all men of being rapists and abusers, which I disagree, women are not always the victim. Yes I do agree with the statistics that women usually are the victims in rape, abusive relationships and sex trafficking. But that does not mean men are never the victim. As of 1998, 2.78 million men in the US had been victim of attempted or completed rape, and 1 out of every 10 rape victims are male. This shows not only women are victims of rape. Also two in five domestic violence victims are men. So this goes to show that women are not always victims and men can be too. I also previously said that I think women don't have it worse than men and men don't have it worse than women. By this I mean in general. I do think when it comes to sexual assault and domestic violence, that women have it worse, and statistics prove to show that. But I think men have it worse when it comes to being taken seriously when emotional and abused. Let's say a women falsely accused a man of raping her. Who are people going to most likely believe? The women or the man? I have personally had family issues with this. My friend physically abused her husband in front of my own eyes and broke his nose, while all he did was grab her by the arms because she was throwing punches. The next day she told everybody we knew that he was abusing her. Although she had no proof, people still believed her, and all she had to do was point her finger and play victim. So with my personal experience and many other stories I have heard, I have come to the conclusion that men have a tougher time being the victim because not many people might even take them seriously. Even if people did believe them, they might just tell them to "man up" or call them a weak because in today's society, if a women hits a man, it's not a huge deal. Plus men might be afraid to tell people due to not wanting to seem weak. Plus I also previously mentioned the smaller things like how girls aren't even taught not to hit boys but boys cannot hit a girl, and the rule of "ladies first". These small things do go to show men are not the only ones that are victims of specific rules of society. Like how women are expected to have perfect bodies and are usually fat shamed more than men, yet men are expected to basically throw everything away just for their girlfriend or spouse. Sources: https://www.rainn.org... https://www.theguardian.com...
Women are not always the victim

Over the course of many years, yes women have been treated wrongly simply for being women. But that is also true for men. Like for example, who was left to die on the titanic? Men. Because at the time, women's lives mattered more than men in that situation. Another example is let's say a women is in an abusive relationship with a man and he is abusing her. She decides to hit him in self defense. It is most likely she will be seen as brave. But if we switch it around and say the women is abusing the man (yes these kind of things do really happen), and the man decides to hit her in self defense, it is most likely he will be seen as the bad guy and will face charges because "he's a man and she's just a weak little women". Why are boys taught to never hit girls, but girls are never taught the same? Why is it in polite for a man to get on a bus before a women? I'm not saying that men have it worse than women, and I'm not saying women have it worse then men. I just disagree that women are the ones lacking all the rights and that women are the victims in every damn situation. Men can be raped, men can be abused, and men can be treated lesser, because they are men.
This work gives a good description of a psychotic episode

con says "Let me ask a question. Do you think that a poem with A) misspelled words B) Letter sizes that jump all over the place C) Poetry worse than the Vogon commander's is a 'good description of a psychotic episode'?" reply A) misspelled words-indicative of or symbolizing psychosis B) Letter sizes that jump all over the place--indicative of or symbolizing psychosis C) Poetry worse than the Vogon commander's-indicative of or symbolizing psychosis is a 'good description of a psychotic episode'-yes they 'good description of a psychotic episode you have missed the whole oint of the poem because you are trapped in notions of good English thus i have given example of psychosis in the poem plus i have shown uses cons own arguments why this poem is a good description of a psychotic episode
This work gives a good description of a psychotic episode

Jeez. How many times do I have to clarify basic debating rules.Let me spell it out.THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM, NOT WITH OTHERS TO DISPROVE.Let me ask a question.Do you think that a poem withA) misspelled wordsB) Letter sizes that jump all over the placeC) Poetry worse than the Vogon commander'sis a 'good description of a psychotic episode'?NO.
This work gives a good description of a psychotic episode

I ague his work gives a good description of a psychotic episode http://www.scribd.com... the work takes us into the mind and experience of psychosis example "rhapsodic melodies of aural delicacies which washed o"er my flesh tones lights touches creates tumultuous avalanches of interweaving synesthesias resonating synergisms of overabundant sensations melting into thoughts of ecstatic revelations of infinite syntonic blisss"
ninja would beat the spartan in deadlist warrior

1) while yes it is true that strength has alot to do with running but it also can be a downfall for spartan beacuse of the fact that spartans have so much muscle mass that too will weigh the spartan down and even if the spartan grows accustomed to his sheild his armour his helmet his spear all weighing him down it will still affect his ability to run against someone who uses running on a missionly basis therefore i believe that my argument still stands. my opponenet states that espinoge and sabatoge would be useless to the ninja in gaining victory over the spartan i will now prove why this is wrong. - by the ninja doing an espinoge mission right before they get into battle it would be easy for the ninja to asses the best battle stratagy before the fight beacuse the spartans are constantly training and so it would be easy to see weaknesses and strengths in the way they fight, - it also prove helpful so that the ninja would see what the land and terrain was like and maybe setup traps prior to the fight my opponent statesthat the stronger someone is while running makes the able to carry more weight while they run yes what my opponent states is true but in no way does it make them faster runners for example look at many african tribes have you seen how fast they run when the charge in to raid or for battle they run alot faster than that of spartan, ninja, almost any army mentioned in the deadlist warrior show. why? well did you notice that they are wearing practically nothing and beacuse of that they are able to run without any resistance hence run faster. another example would be lets look at the strongest person in the world. ever notice how he isnt the fastest runner. my oponent states that we should not use enviroment to our advantage or use it at all well if you look at the world most of the world then would be alot better for the ninja beacuse only a fraction of the world is desert and if you look at both warriors homelands they both would be beneficial for the ninja then. also my opponent mentions that if the spartan were to stay put with the sheild that would be helping the ninja even more beacuse if the spartan were to stay there with the shield then the ninja would easily be able to creep around, kill him from high points longer distances away with ranges weapons. it doesnt but through the martial art that ninjas use they train with all parts of their bodies not to metion when assinating someone they had to be able to be flexible enough to climb all around the palaces by roof top and quiet enough which means that they would learn how to use and use effectivly every part of their bodies yeah i cannot deny that the spartan would have more strength but mainly beacuse of bloodline and size. yes i also agree that it would revolve to stalemate and even if the spartans were to meet the ninja the ninja probably would just wait till night to assasinate him so i found the match up pretty messed As am I,thank you
ninja would beat the spartan in deadlist warrior

The ninja must learn espionage and sabotage which would not help him in the battle against the Spartan. Only a fraction of the ninjas training is spent on learning to fight. The Spartan on the other hand, spends every day of his entire life training for battle. Strength has a lot to do with the Spartan running. The stronger someone is, the more weight they can carry while running. The fact that the Spartans never retreated does not mean that the ninja runs more. A large part of the Spartans training is running and building endurance. In a forest situation the shield would be a burden and so the ninja would have the advantage but in a desert the ninja would be at a disadvantage because he would have nowhere to hide. Their is no point of using environments in your arguments. The Spartan would not take very long to take of his shield (its as easy as throwing it on the ground). The reality of the matter is that if the ninja was to run away, then the Spartan could just stay put with his shield up and it would be a stalemate. 2. ) The Spartan probably did train much more than the ninja because he would train his whole life. The ninja on the other hand was busy with espionage and sabotage missions which could have taken years. This would cut into the training time of a ninja dramatically. How exactly did the ninja train with more parts of his body? How does sabotage train any part of your body? The Spartan developed a strong body in general so he trained all parts of his body. You cannot deny that in terms of strength, the Spartan is vastly superior. The Spartans do not have a lack of technique. They train all of their lives with a sword so they are very efficient, probably more so than the ninja. In reality it all depends on the situation and the individuals that are fighting. The perfect ninja against the perfect Spartan would be a fight that would end in a draw. Though generally still believe that Spartans are in fact the deadliest warrior. I agree that the scenario that the show provided was not the best example of how this fight could go down. No problem, I am also very happy to take part in this debate
ninja would beat the spartan in deadlist warrior

stregnth has no part in the spartan running and even if the spartan has fast running and is accustomed to running with the sheild the ninja is also accustomed to running alot more than the spartan beacuse the spartans would never retreat they would not run however the ninja almost always strikes kills the target then gets away which means that they train extensively with running also if the ninja and spartan were fighting in a forest that was dense the spartan sheild would be nothing more than a burden beacuse of its size. also even if the spartan were also to drop the sheild and chase at full speed like i said before ninjas have extensive knowledge on thier weapons they would be able to draw them out faster than usual and also it depends on the distance between them and the amount of time that the ninja takes to run while the spartan takes off his sheild gives the ninja the advantage and the chances of the spartan to see the caltrops which are very small, and given the fact that the spartan is only focussing getting the ninja. . http://www.spike.com... 2) if you are a fan of deadlist warrior and have watched the samurai vs the viking if you saw the samurai's bow shot he hit both eyes with a single shot each now imagine if the emporer needed assasins better than that i think that the ninjas aim would be even more acute (if you wish to see the samurai click the link above and speed up till you get to the part with the bow) so about my wrong choice of words but there is no particular evidence that the spartans trained more than the ninja, but beacuse of the ninja trained in martial arts and sabatoging and all the previous mentined he trained with more parts of his body causing his body to be more adapted for more situations and on the note of endurance beacuse the ninja trained i martial arts for example ninjutsu they learned how to do the most damage while exerting the least effort where as spartans will tire themselves out eventually beacuse of their lack of technique so the spartans just rely on sheer strength which will tire them out faster. some of the things i was dissapointed with in deadlist warrior was the final simulation: 1) at the very beginning when the spartan was walking past the ninja in the tree the ninja wouldnt have come up to him just shoot him from that distance 2) when the ninja aproached the spartan the ninja woudl not have yelled that was quite dumb and even if he were to then the spartan would not have been able to turn around 3) when the ninja jumped over the log he did a flip ninjas would not do this that was just for show 4) when the ninja used the black egg the spartan recoverd wayyyyy too fast its glass he would not be able to see and the ninja didnt take the oppertunity to kill him right then and there. i would once again like to show m appreciation by thanking my opponent for taking the time to debate with me and share his ideas and facts on the topic.