BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Online Schooling VS. public schools

In K-12, online courses are not an alternative to public schooling.(1) Students are not self-motivated enough to do the workWith a classroom setting, students have to turn in assignments each day. Teachers help students learn *how* to learn by helping them do assignments in increments (such as reading pages 15-30 for tomorrow, rather than reading 3 chapters the day before the test). My opponent's own argument proves this problem:"you can do a week's worth of work, in a few hours." You get less out of a week's worth of assignments if you rush to do them all the day before they are due, rather than doing them incrementally and then discussing them the next day in class to aid in remembering.(2) Students cannot work in groupsIn David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell explains that class size follows an "inverted-U" in terms of how it impacts students performance. If you have *too many* students, teachers have found that the classroom becomes unmanageably large. However, if you have *too few* students, teachers cannot tap into "group learning" by doing group project and students cannot help each other by asking a question that another student has, but failed to ask or completely formulate. My opponent says that with online learning, you don't get confused by the questions of others. However, if other people have a valid question, you should not get confused at all - you either already know the answer or need to listen to the answer. In many cases, other people ask questions that you need to know the answer to, but didn't think to ask. The "sweet stop" for classroom learning is between 15 and 30 students. Anything less than 15, and you lose the benefit of group learning and of having other students ask questions for you (according to Gladwell).(3) Scam artists"The down side is that many virtual online schools rely on new technologies, such as white boards, that aren’t always reliable or beyond the capabilities of some home computers. Also, some online schools have been known to vanish, leaving no valid URL online. Always make sure you have non-net ways of contacting these businesses, and keep a portfolio at home of your student’s accomplishments." [1](4) Not taken seriouslyOnline colleges are not taken very seriously in the job world and likewise, online middle schools etc.. will not be taken seriously by college. There are no points of comparison in terms of what a grade means from many of these online courses. So colleges do not know if an A corresponds to an A at Exeter (an elite private school) or an A from the worst school in America. At least regular public schools have a long history, so colleges know the quality of a letter grade. Online schools might pop up and disappear in a matter of months.[1] http://a2zhomeschooling.com...;
should kanye be president of 2020

: yes Kanye isn"t afraid to express his opinions & feelings about anything; however he can be a tad bit emotional when doing so " lets not forget the infamous, "Kanye Rants". I can see it now, Kanye being upset that something didn"t go exactly as he planned it to go & putting the entire U.S. on punishment " no one is allowed to go outside for an entire week or until things go as he stated. That"ll suck!Kanye doesn"t come alone. He"s a married man; therefore his wife, Kim " and I"m quite sure her entire Kardashian family will also come along. I actually keep up with The Kardashians, which at times can be a bit much, I"m not sure if the White House & the entire U.S. can handle or even want to deal with reality TV & the things thatNot exactly sure if Kanye thought out this entire Presidency but we all know Kanye main issue is within the music industry. The President of the U.S. doesn"t have anything to do with that; therefore during certain award shows, especially the Grammys, I can already foresee someone winning an award over someone else & Kanye not agreeing with it so it have the entire channel interrupted by one of his rants. Lol! Whatever happens and if Kanye really does run for President, this is definitely going to be very interesting comes along with it.
Jesus had liberal veiws

"The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]" There is an important distinction between the death penalty and just plain old killing. Like I said before, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any significant political stance that thinks murder is ok. So that statement cannot be proof of his left wing views. The simple phrase "thou shalt not kill" cannot be construed to be talking about the death penalty. "Welfare and Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]" This is just talking about being personally charitable, which has nothing to do with supporting welfare and social programs. Again I don't know of any significant political stance that is against people being charitable to others. I for one embrace his ideal of being personally charitable to others, but I am against welfare and most social programs. "Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7] Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]" I don't see how this is asserting a left-wing view, I don't really know if there is an official left-wing stance on crime and punishment other than being anti-death penalty, and putting more money into prisons for them to be rehabilitation facilities. In the quote about casting stones, the situation is people wanting to stone to death a woman for committing adultery. As I said before I don't know many right-wingers, libertarians, communists, (etc.) who think that adulteresses should be stoned. "Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]" The first quote is the closest one to Jesus having a left wing view. However I would say he is simply saying that on a personal level people should be peacemakers, and not hate and argue, another idea that non-liberals do not oppose. The rest of the quotes are undoubtedly simply talking about loving and doing good to others on a personal level. These simple proverbs cannot be applied to the complex political entanglements of war, and I don't Jesus meant them to be applied to such things. "So, aren't these veiws considered "left-Wing"?" Sure...but most of them can also be considered right-wing, libertarian, communist, (etc.)
Jesus had liberal veiws

Sorry for not posting, computer was down. My point is according to modren day standards did jesus have liberal veiws. Capital punishment? Welfare? War? What do you think he would support? Well, lets see: Biblical Quotes Supporting the Belief that Jesus Is A Liberal Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44] The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21] Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7] Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.] Welfare and Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.] So, aren't these veiws considered "left-Wing"?
Jesus had liberal veiws

I agree with your statement that Jesus was far above political views. I'm almost certain he wasn't involved or cared about politics in his day or would in our day either. Also theres no way you could compare politics today in the U.S. to politics in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Ok so for sake of the debate let's assume he had political views that are based on his teachings (I'll exclude government spending issues because I wouldn't imagine Jesus ever thought about what role government should play in people's lives). I would still say socially and culturally he would not to a liberal "by American modern standards." I say this because he lived in a time of extreme Jewish orthodoxy where it was government law that adulteresses should be stoned, and certain criminals could be eligible for torture and crucifixion. As we know Jesus went against the "stoning adulteresses" law, which would have been considered liberal or leftist at the time. However "by American modern standards" I think you would be hard pressed to find any significant political ideology that believes in stoning adulteresses or anybody for that matter. We also know that he spoke out against the corruptness of tax collectors. Once again "by American modern standards" this would neither be classified as left, right, socialist, libertarian, fascist (etc.). No significant political ideology believes that tax collectors should be able to be corrupt and keep tax money. There's a whole host of other things Jesus said that could be considered "progressive" in his time, but would not be considered specifically left wing or any political position in our modern day. Now were Jesus alive today and had political views, would he support such left wing social issue positions as gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization, gun control (etc.). Most of these issues you of course could not say because guns, modern drugs and contraceptives didn't exist in his time so he never said anything regarding them. The very idea of birth control didn't exist back then (except in isolated instances such as Cleopatra in Egypt) so if you were found pregnant and were married you kept the baby, and if you were unmarried you were killed. Those were the only two options, unless you did it in secret, the option of using contraceptives or having an abortion is canceled out because anyone eligible for an abortion in the current day, would be killed in his day. While it is never documented that he said anything regarding homosexuality we can probably assume that he had the understanding that Jewish society had at that time, which is that homosexuality is an aberration to be overcome, not embraced. Jesus wouldn't have had access to scientific research about homosexual genes and such like that. Left leaning in his day? Sure, but if he were political today I don't think you could say he's necessarily left leaning.
Jesus had liberal veiws

I WILL NOT AFFILIATE JESUS CHRIST WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY. I WILL NOT SPEAK FOR CHRIST. This is only really to point out some of his teachings that according to todays standards are "Liberal". I don't want anyone to say he IS a liberal or he IS a conservitive (repulican, democrat, socialist, nazi, communist,ect.) Jesus Christ, in my humble opinion is so far above our political spectrum. However, his teachings at a whole scale level seem to lean to the left, only by American modren standards. Peace and Tolerance seem to be a reoccuring theme with Christ. As well helping the poor and turning the other cheek. I will make my case as soon as someone decides to start this debate with me. Lets keep this respectful. No name calling, swearing, attacking. This will be a very peaceful discusion. Thank You.
What came first the chicken or the egg

Definitions: came: "Past tense of cum because cummed doesn't sound right." [1] cum: "To orgasm" [2] The resolution "What came first the chicken or the egg" refers to whether the chicken or the egg was the first to orgasm. I will be arguing that the chicken first had an orgasm before the egg, while my opponent will argue that the egg first had an orgasm. I will wait for my opponent to make the first arguments. [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [2] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
What came first the chicken or the egg

My opponent gave no source to support that the word 'came' can mean existence. Even if my opponent wants to claim it could have meant "came into existence", because came could also refer to other things such as "came home" or "came to a conclusion". But the orgasm definition doesn't require additional context; "The chicken came." is unambiguous when using the orgasm definition, unlike my opponent's definition which requires the qualifier "into existence" to prove his point. Even if we use the most popular definition of come (the present tense of came) according to http://www.merriam-webster.com... "to move toward something", the chicken still came first, since eggs are immobile and lack the ability to move towards something, while chickens do move towards things, it can still be concluded that the chicken came first. My opponent failed to give a source to support his definition of came, and did not give any reason why his definition is more fitting given the context provided in the debate topic.
What came first the chicken or the egg

Umm... well to be honest I was going for an evolution vs creationism debate, but I failed to specify. I also failed to reply in time so the following will be my one and only argument. Also since my opponent wants to take words out of contexts I will do the same. In the debate of a chicken producing semen (cumming) versus the existence of an egg in the world (came) the earliest egg was came to existence when the evolving creatures first used sexual reproduction involving sperm and an egg long before the existence of chickens. I should remind my opponent I did not specify chicken egg.
What came first the chicken or the egg

Eggs are incapable of having orgasms because they lack the reproductive organs required for the sex that results in an orgasm. Chicken on the other hand, can and do have sex. And we know chickens must experience pleasure during sex, which can be referred to as an orgasm, because they must be motivated by this pleasure in order for them to choose to have sex. Since chickens orgasm and eggs don't orgasm, then it can be concluded that the chicken came first.
Resolved: People Exist

I didn't realize this debate was only two rounds. If you want you can challenge me or post the topic again. As far as the argument, the fact that people exist is not true. True- being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. reliable, unfailing, or sure: a true sign. The only thing that makes us aware of other people is our sense experience (I see people, hear people, bump into people etc.) However, our sense experience is dubious and therefore can not be relied upon. So, since the only thing I have to verify (or make true) the fact that people exist is my sensory experience of them, which is dubious, it cannot be made certain or true that people exist. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Animal testing should be banned

I would like to start with something to ponder throughout the entire debate; which is more valuable, the life of a human being, or that of an animal such as a primate or mouse. I would also like to clarify that I am against animal testing in the cosmetic industry, and that I am arguing for the biomedical field. I myself have worked in a lab setting (primarily as an intern during my summers as a med student) and can say first hand that the use of animals in testing medical and biomedical inventions is critical to the forward motion of the biomedical field. But don't take my word for it, a poll conducted by the science journal Natura in 2011 of 1,000 biomedical scientists found that "more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." The cost animal life is absolutely justified in the thousands of human lives that could be saved with the knowledge gained from animal testing. Source(s): http://www.prnewswire.com...
Legal Euthanasia

What would be necessary for you to switch sides in this argument? Would there ever be a situation in your opinion that made it ok to legally euthanize? Would there be a specific condition or disease that had specific symptoms that would make it ok for someone to commit suicide by chemical drugs? What if they didn"t have any family or friends and they were all alone having to deal with so much pain? Would there be any situation that would make it ok for physician assisted suicide?
Legal Euthanasia

I will be debating the topic of suicide by chemical assistance by a doctor or medical physician. There are many diseases and conditions that humans unfortunately have to live and suffer through even if their future is only said to be on the decline. If there is no treatment available or if treatment is no longer an option, (meaning it would do more harm than good " if the condition is too advanced for the treatment to work) there is no choice to be made and the person must endure whatever comes before their bodies finally give up. Without listing all of the horrible symptoms that these people endure, it could be said that they have no choice but to sit and suffer through the last days of their life before their body finally shuts down and gives up. Of course there are going to be people who hang on to the last days of their lives and feel blessed to live another day, but on the other hand there could be people who are ready to move on and shed the pain and suffering that goes along with life (for them). Shouldn't there be another option for these people?
Is an atheist celebrating Christmas hypocritical

This is a by-product of the generalization of all holidays in any given country. The reality is that if you are not a member of a populace, no matter what that populace is, celebrating their day makes no sense. To that end Saint Patrick's Day, Saint Valentine's Day, and Halloween are all holidays that are commonly celebrated in the United States and other portions of the world that only have lore in Catholocism or if you are Irish. No one else should celebrate them. Yet many people do and it is recognized that this is part of the culture of the nation versus a matter of ownership in relation to the holiday itself and that is now impractical to call those who celebrate these things outside of the proper orders hypocrites or demand respect in the face of the obvious cultural absorption.
Is an atheist celebrating Christmas hypocritical

I will define celebrating within the context of this argument as participation, so buying/receiving presents, personally decorating your home/personal spaces, refusal to work, giving cards, partaking in unequivocally Christian practices such as carol singing, attending Christian services such as mass, adoration of a Christmas tree publicly, proclaiming Christmas statement onto others such as happy Christmas or any other practice which is actively participated in or perpetrated by the individual which could indeed be ignored without causing offence to others. I am not inciting that an individual should do anything that actively offends non atheist family members or friends, eg refusal to eat a Christmas dinner specifically cooked for you but rather that Christmas Day for the individual atheist should be seen completely as any other day of the year without acknowledgment or celebration and that anything other than this is hypocrisy.
We should have segregated prisons based on race.

This is a debate weather we should have segregated prisons. Segregation: The act or practice of segregating; a setting apart or separation of people or things from others or from the main body or group. http://www.dictionary.com... Prison: A building where criminals are kept as a punishment http://dictionary.cambridge.org... Round one will be acceptance. Begin debating round 2 and 3. No ad hominem Keep it civil guys.
We should have segregated prisons based on race.

I hope for a civil debate. Now what is the main idea of this debate? This is whether we should have segregated prisons based on race. Now the segregation is not based on race but more of gang violence. Look at the Aryan Brotherhood. Being the nations first major white supremacist prison gang. I am not assuming there white supremacist ideology." It's criminal organization. We need to be clear on that. Is there racism? You bet there is racism. Is it dominant? No."Ex-AB leader Michael Thompson. Following from this quote a former Aryan Brotherhood leader admitted the Aryan Brotherhood being a white supremacist and criminal organization. Now how is this relevant? The Segregation prison will reduce race wars. Gang violence will reduce since they have less gangs to attack. Look at what happened. There has been multiple times where a northern Mexican meets a southern Mexican in the mess hall. Let's say things were unpleasant. This is less about race and more of gang violence and racism. A inmate is more likely to share his cell with a person with the same race and ethnic group than there is with one without it. "In instances where the matter was pushed by staff, they would have to physically force the inmates into the cells. This resulted in a massive administrative hassle as the situation is considered to be a "calculated use of force." This required notifications to people in high places who didn"t want to be irritated, a video record of the incident, sometimes delays in count and significant impact to prison operations, including overtime costs." says by Bob Walsh. It's pretty clear. The segregation of races and ethnic groups is less about race and more about the safety of the guards,inmates,and race relations. Sources and Cites: https://www.splcenter.org... https://www.correctionsone.com...
The "Gender Wage Gap" is a Myth

Thank you. I think it's unfair for a man (or woman) to enter a workplace, spend more time yet not as much effort, and be paid more. In America, as I've said before, women earn significantly less than men in virtually every industry - including those where 80% of workers are female. http://www.census.gov...... I'm not saying discrimination is directly involved or that all employers are insane misogynists. I'm saying that the system they use to pay workers is inevitably discriminatory towards women, especially those with families. When I said 'primal human behaviors', I was referring to the idea that the man works and the woman stays home and cares for the children. As a Conservative, I like this traditional family style, however, I don't think it's right that the woman who decides to work should be paid less because they don't put in as much time - they should be paid based on the quality and effort of their work. That's the wage gap, and that's the solution to it. I'd like to thank you for this debate which I have really enjoyed. And now for Pro's conclusion.