BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) do more good than harm.

Greetings and thank you for posting this debate I think it will be an interesting one. I would like to argue that MOOCs are far more helpful than they are hurtful for numerous reasons. The first being that they give willing students access to information that might be otherwise unattainable. The majority of MOOCs are free and do provide quality information. There are numerous people who value the knowledge offered and want to learn any of it that they can. MOOCs give the information, even if it without optimal student teacher interaction. I would like to use an example to better prove my point. Imagine you are blind. Someone if willing to offer you a device or prescription for free that will allows you to see (something that would otherwise be unattainable). Now this device will not give you perfect vision but it will allow you to see and get you farther than you ever could on your own. Would you accept this device as something good and helpful or would you say it is harmful because it only lets you see partially and not perfectly. Of course you would want to take advantage of the sight offered even if it was limited. In the same way MOOCs offer you aid even if they do not completely resolve the problem. No one is forcing the student to choose MOOCs over a different type of education they are just available and at the disposal of those who do wish to use them to their advantage. The second reason MOOCs are helpful is because they place more responsibility on the student. He or she must really yearn for their education and be passionate about the subject. My opponent referred to the challenge presented by MOOCs as negative, but is challenge not the basis of education and further more life in general. If a person is not challenged they will never truly excel or further their knowledge. The low completion rate does not show a flaw in the system but rather the commitment of those students willing to complete the course. If it was easy everyone would do it. But it is not the people doing easy things that are changing the world and making innovations today. Rather the true game changers are the ones who are challenged. Those who struggle and persevere through their struggles are the ones who ultimately end up being successful. As hard as it is to acknowledge, failure is a choice. One has not truly failed until they do not try again. It is the people who come up short and keep trying that are true winners. Take Edison for example he tried over nine thousand different ways to create a light bulb. However, he persevered and eventually was successful. Thus he never truly failed. MOOCs force the student to take their education more into their own hands and want to excel. The type of people who can choose to put in the extra work in order to be successful are better equipped than those who are not challenged and are not forced to make their education their own. My opponent is focusing on one downside to MOOCs and that is that they do not offer optimal student teacher interactions. I argue, however, that this is far from enough cause for MOOCs to be deemed more harmful than helpful.
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) do more good than harm.

MOOCs have not done more good than harm because they have made discussion a challenge for students. In MOOCs, it is impossible for professors to talk with hundreds of thousands of people, making discussion impossible and resulting negatively upon students. MOOCs, as we have stated, normally have over 100,000 students. This makes it virtually impossible for a professor to have a discussion with each and every student, sort out their problems, and help them learn better. Also, it creates chaos in a classroom. (Source - US News) In some colleges, there is a 1 to 12 teacher to student ratio, and at some are a 1 to 100 teacher to student ratio. (Source - katyjordan.com) MOOCs have incredibly low completion rates. For the average MOOC, only 13% of students enrolled in it actually complete it. This argument shows that, in a MOOC, it is practically impossible to have a meaningful teacher to student discussion, possibly resulting in low grades and poor student performance. This could be because of a number of reasons. One of them is the large sizes of the MOOCs not allowing personal teacher-student conversations. Therefore, we believe that MOOCs have not done more good than harm.
Justin Bieber should be deported

Your argument implies that all criminals that don't have American Nationality should be deported. Yes it might solve some future problems, but to make people go away you have jails, you don't need to deport. The fact that you are asking for him to be deported instead of just facing jail time, shows that you like the idea of being deported, it's cool. And fighting for him to be treated like any other person is not fun or appealing to you. Around 10% of the people being deported out of the United States are in fact, legal residents of the country. And Justin Bieber isn't an illegal immigrant. Justin Bieber has a lot of potential charges under his belt, from driving under influence, to assault charges and to vandalism charges. Still, Justin Bieber has nothing to fear, yet. Unless he commits graver crimes, his attorney can ensure he stay within the country. According to experts, DUI and vandalism are both not deportable crimes, but the assault charge can be. However, a well-paid legal team can do wonders. Bieber also has another advantage. He never received a green card. Bieber is in the United States on a visa for people with "extraordinary" abilities. So should he be deported? No, not according to the law. Do a lot of people want him to be deported? Yes, because why not! Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, the legal aspect is boring, and people just want him gone because it would be cool! How awesome would it be if you found he was deported back to his hometown in Canada on the news? Pretty cool! I'd sign that stupid petition myself, if I was prone to have unfounded opinions.
gun control

http://www.worldnetdaily.com... http://www.opednews.com... I'm sorry I wasn't able to post more, I've been busy with mid terms. But no excuse, I will try to post something with what time I have left. As studies have shown, the only connection there is with tighter gun control is that the more people who own a gun, the more lives are saved. You can choose not to believe this and let the media think for you, but I will be thinking for my self. Our own soldiers fought, starved, froze, and burned to death for our right to bear arms, and I intend to do just that. I also found this sight, though it really isn't on gun control, the person seems to thing like I do. http://www.flismfilms.com... Thanks
gun control

I thought I was going to have more time to post than I do so I will have to be brief, I apologize in advance. My opponent claims that gun control does not work for the simple reason that guns are still accessible through illegal means. But this alone is not a reason for abolishing gun control laws. Gun control works, at the very least, to some degree. While we are constantly perfecting the legislation on the books, the laws we have produce positive results. In the past decade, more than 1.3 million criminals have been blocked from buying guns at licensed dealers (http://www.bradycampaign.org...). It may be true that we can't prevent crime from happening, but these laws do make a difference, and the benefits are worth the restrictions. Assault weapons bans are another valuable gun control law. There is no good reason for anyone to possess a gun that can shoot that many rounds. This is another example of a positive gun control law. Gun control does work, the United States has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership and, as a result, one of the highest rates of homicides in the developed world. Guns cause more problems than they solve. Unfortunately I have to go, sorry for the short post this time.
gun control

Gun control: By definition, gun control does not work because of this reason. The thug down the street who robbed a bank more than likely, did not get his gun legally. He probably does not have a gun liscence, and most likely got his gun from the street corner or black market. Let me give an example: A man goes crazy, and decides to go on a shooting rampage, as the media would describe. He doesn't have his gun liscence, never has owned a gun, but because of his situation like so many others, he is bound and determined to get that gun. He could go to a pawn shop, not all ID or proscess. He could try and find someone on the street corner, who will more than likely sell him a gun for a price. Or, he could go online and get one off of the black market, which yes, does exist. Either way, his detemination and mental illness will allow him to succeed. He will get that gun, and will more than likey go on a shooting rampage, unless someone takes action, which so far no one has in past cases. Here's another scenario: The man has never had a history of mental illness, doesn't have a criminal background, and decides to go the long but safe way in getting his weapon. He get's his liscence, a long drawn out process, but he does it just the same like every one else who gets a gun legally. He goes to buy a gun, it takes a few days, and he has to have it registered. He needs a background check, but nothing comes of it because he has a clean history. So now, he has his gun, he has it legally, and he goes on a shooting rampage. Security: Look at the last shooting. They had detectors, but somehow, using a guitar case, he brought a shotgun up on to the stage in a lecture hall. While you may say it's taking a step, the truth is, that step is an imaginary step, as it doesn't exist because it is impossible for gun control in the slightest way. The criminal doesn't have to be the guy who went on the shooting rampage, he could be the guy who sold it to him, the one on the corner. He could be the guy that robbed your local bank in a hold up. No matter the situation, they're all criminals, and they can all get, or already do have a gun. If you have some 'theory' about how gun control does or will work, I would like to hear it. Or maybe it's security.
does social media effect society in a good way

I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour
does social media effect society in a good way

POINT 1: Well you may not know this but 59% of children who have used social media report that they have used it to discuss educational topics with their friends and the other 41% use social media to complete assignments with their friends. George Middle School in Portland, Oregon introduced a social media program to engage students to be with their friends and still be working together and after they did that students grades went up by 50% and skipping school went down by 33% and 20% of students school wide voluntarily completed extra credit assignments. http://socialnetworking.procon.org...
does social media effect society in a good way

some examples of these are; suicidal thoughts, depression, loneliness, and the need to cyber bully. First off let me explain my point, without any actual human contact your brain will start to thing being alone is normal and good, so the next time you have a choice to hang out with friends or go update your blog. your brain will most likely choose the second option creating a vicious circle pulling more and more people in. No-one can help it but we can fight against it by going outside more and leaving Facebook for another day. We do not need social media to punch a hole to all of our "Real" relationships goodbye and good day.
does social media effect society in a good way

I cxman123 challenge you Erossucks123 to a social media argument. The rules of this debate are the following: by social media I mean online, or handheld media like; Facebook, Twitter, or Snap chat. Not the news or any "TV" social media like the news. The rounds will go like this: -Round 1: Rule stating and acceptance of rules -Round 2: opening arguments -Round 3: First rebuttal -Round 4: Last rebuttal and closing arguments -sincerely cxman123
i dont know=i have to imagine it

Exactly. Therefore, it is true that I did not know, and that I now know, making it truth, knowledge and a presently forming memory. So therefore, the questions was not answered with imagination, but by investigation, because "I don't know" is an investigable question. I don't know =/= I have to imagine it Also, 'have to' is imperative. If you don't care about the answer to the question, why do you have to imagine it? Is it currently snowing in East Germany? At the moment, this question doesn't interest me, so I will not think about it nor investigate it nor imagine it. Therefore, I don't know =/= have to imagine. But if I DID want to know, instead of imagining it, I could Google it, and then I would know it. I already explained that you know the sound is caused by something specific when it meets the following criteria: Sound_Source_Incorrect =/= (T(^2) - I= S). Also, I have already explained that one can identify the true source of the sound by performing independent, corroborative sensory audits to ensure one has identified the correct object.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

Sir, I'm afraid that you are imagining my agreement with you, because it is a belief, not a truth (belief =/= truth). Perhaps you are not well versed in these terms. Let me teach you, because teaching is the greatest teacher, and teaching begets knowledge, knowledge begets wisdom and wisdom begets freedom. Let me explain, because this information is esoteric and not many people know about it. cause+(and)effect=(equal, is)logic plus+minus=equal It follows that: Logic and reason = cause + effect (-). So therefore, knowledge of truth (and NOT imagination follows): sound_identify (which we will call S from now) = truth(T)(^2) - imagination(I) In order for the truth of the origin of the sound to be valid, we must be sure it is not being caused by something else. So: S =/= (T(^2) - I= S). I am ascribing truth a square because it is more valuable, in my opinion, than imagination. What about you? Make sense now? Now, why did you drop my milk contention? Is it because you are aware that it is an example that demonstrates your flawed calculations about reality and imagination? Over to you.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

You said, "I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, as I don't have to imagine it, and know is true [sic]". By the same means, I say, "I know there is milk in my fridge as I am looking at it and don't have to imagine it". When the source of the sound is identified, one can perform corroborative sensory audits to ensure one has identified the correct object.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

"I don't know" does not necessitate imagining an answer. Example Question: Do you have any milk? Answer: "I don't know" Potential response: checking the fridge for milk. Imagining the answer is not a prerequisite for addressing a question where the answer is not currently known. Secondary example: What is making that noise? "I don't know". Potential response: following the sound to find out what it is.
beem0r is a dreamer

After all, you'd have to dream to be able to deny the obvious truth that beem0r, kleptin, yraelz, logicalmaster, and sportsguru are the same person. http://www.debate.org... After having made this comment as well as received several harrassing emails from beem0r and his co-conspirators, I cannot help that they have pushed me into combat. In this debate, I not only intend to clear my good name through exposing this group as the frauds they are, but I will give the proof needed to lock them away and throw away the key. Debate.org cannot suffer another minute under their tyranny. As a hunter for peace as well as the eternal husband of justice, I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS ANY LONGER. The previous debate here was just a warm up to let the "Legion of Dumb" know that someone was onto them. But in this debate, I will unleash my full fury. If beem0r gets more than 4 votes in this debate after I thoroughly destroy him, this will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that he has other accounts. #1. beem0r confesses to being a troll and having multiple accounts. See this comment section for proof: http://www.debate.org... I also think this account belongs to beem0r due to the lack of usage, the fact that it was created during the time of that debate, and that it's only comment has been made on that debate: http://www.debate.org... , but I'm not sure. #2. beem0r happens to know everything the other accounts do and think on this site. Take this comment section for example: http://www.debate.org... He just HAPPENS to KNOW what logicalmaster said in some other unrelated comment section on this site. He even KNEW WHEN he said it. Even googling that comment, EVEN I have trouble finding what LM said. And look at this comment: http://www.debate.org... Kleptin makes a joke which ONLY him and beem0r happen to understand. Isn't that a little odd? Also notice how kleptin defends beem0r religiously when someone else uses mere playful humor. To top it off, Kleptin gets offended when he isn't even the one being "attacked." Very strange. #3. kleptin confesses to having another account: http://www.debate.org... In the comment section of this debate Kleptin quite clearly states, "Atwinraven is one of my other accounts." This implies that Kleptin has more than two accounts. He also casually admits to it here: http://www.debate.org... This was done to throw people off, but it's pretty apparent that he does possess numerous accounts. #4. Kleptin is omnipresent? http://www.debate.org... This debate was already two or three pages behind the most current debates, and yet Kleptin conveniently comes out of nowhere to agree with LogicalMaster when he is (rightfully) being attacked for butting into someone else's debate. #5. Yraelz was beaten like a dog in this debate. http://www.debate.org... If they weren't the same person, he should have had the advantage and should have easily won. Need more proof? Read this debate: http://www.debate.org... And since this is two round, I'm more than ready to rebutt the lies and foolish responses made in the previous debate. Have at thee.
Samsung Galaxy S4 is better than Iphone5

Samsung Galaxy S4 is a copy from iPhone, I'd just like to point that out to begin with.The speed point was a lie. Look at this source: http://www.phonearena.com... says that "The iPhone's Safari browser revolutionized mobile browsing, and continues to blow us away with its blazing-fast performance."A bigger screen makes the Samsung phone both heavier and have more surface area on which to be broken or cracked.The camera quality is ridiculous because no phone is supposed to take very good quality photos, they are just meant for nice, standard use, this advantage is minimal.The Samsung needed a sharper screen resolution because it had a bigger screen which I already explained is a disadvantage.Samsung is a rip-off of the iPhone, no originality whatsoever.
Samsung Galaxy S4 is better than Iphone5

There have been huge competition between Samsung Galaxys and Iphone 5's recently. But you must agree with me that Samsungs galaxy S4'S are better than Iphone 5's because of the following reasons.1. SpeedThe response and internet access from the samsung galaxy S4 is way faster than the iphone five, not only that, the connection is always lost and you often have to restart a program etc.2. Screen sizeThe samsung galaxy S4's screen is 5 inches! A whole inch larger than the Iphone!3. Camera qualityThe samsung galaxy S4's camera software packs a 13 megapixel camera whilst the Iphone 5 only holds 8 megapixels.4. Sharper screenThe iphone5's pixel resolution is 1136x640 whilst the samsung galaxy S4 has an even more impressive 1920x1080 pixels resolutions!So after all this, what else can be said? The Samsung Galaxy S4 is more recent and new, but in the first few weeks of arrival, 20 million were sold worldwide, apple cant beat that...
We should stop using functioning labels do describe autistic people

The Con should win this debate for several reasons.1: The Pro has not provided adequate evidence to support her claims, Con evidence outweighsThroughout the round the Pro has referred to blogs, comment sections, youtube videos and Vlogs. Only in the final round did she provide any credible evidence, however much of this evidence, when examined undermines her argument and infact disagrees with her claim. And only two of these sources can be considered legitimate (if they are relevant) because the article from . http://autism.lovetoknow.com... was not written by a doctor, but rather "a freelance writer who specializes in jewellery and crafts. "In her first argument in the final round she contended that CDD is a separate disorder from ASD, however the Kurita et al. evidence is from 2011, two years BEFORE the release of the DSM-V, and therefore prior to the revised definition which included CDD as a subtype of ASD. The other website provided both acknowledged this change by the DSM-V, and while it was written after the DSM-V was proposed, in 2012, it was still written before the DSM-V was adopted in 2013. The website states"Under the proposed DSM-5 revisions, all PDDs, including CDD, will be subsumed under the single diagnostic category of autism spectrum disorders. The rationale for this is the similarity between the disorders, as it is now thought that the symptoms of the disorders are on a continuum with autism. "No credible evidence was provided to support the argument by the Pro, while I have provided numerous credible and credentialed sources. The Pro therefore has not met the burden of Proof and cannot win the debate.2: The Pro has failed to sufficiently address the challenges against her argumentsIn the final round, the Pro did not refute any of my arguments, with the exception of the first argument. Rather than address the University of Washington evidence I provided, the Pro has simply stated that the criteria is different than what people believe, and what people believe is wrong. The fact is that false misconceptions by the wider population is not a reason to throw out the criteria which is based on concepts of high functionality and low functionality. The Pro also failed to answer my question as to what terminology should be used instead of high and low functioning, and just stated it should not be the latter or the former. This is simply dodging the question posed by the con, and all challenges by the con must be answered or they are conceded. And rather than acknowledging that I do not speak for the Autistic community, the Pro has extended this argument. These are just a few of the examples3: The Pro conceded that Scientific Community and the Experts agree with LabelsThe Pro has stated that the "the scientific community may support the concept". This is a key argument in this debate and by conceding it, the Pro has conceded the debate.