BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS POSSIBLE that your statements are tight with their opinions and facts. However in our hands to control what produces us angers and the way we react toward those feelings. even though Seneca and Aristotle states their points, telling us the differences between them and how to prepared our minds, is also a hard issue how to deal with this feelings in a determinant moment. We can control those feelings, and also we can control the state of mind and decisions we make toward them in in our hand prepare our minds to upcoming issues and respond well and with a fresh into solve this situations that we often face. Work in an calm stage of mind is in a way to prepare our mind to anything to supposed to come later, without lose the mind or temper, if so at the end we can control most of the things around us, in concern to feelings and how to face them, also how to prepare our mind for upcoming issues and be ready for them. Follow Aristotle and Seneca anger guidelines could be a good motive, however the moment will determinate the action.
anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT feelings cannot be controlled. Epictetus and Seneca have given clear statements of recognizing what is and what isn't in our control. Deciding not to control your emotions is in your control and a choice that you can make. Reasoning allows time for one to think things through while anger just hurries things along. If we desire to be better people morally we must first accept as Seneca states that no one is faultless in anything. As he says as well, anger mostly begins in our power and if not contained then it can turn into things are no longer in our control. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT anger provides the equipment needed to be courageous but rather to be cowardly.
The true nature of Jesus Christ being equal to God (For Jehovah Witnesses who think God made Jesus)

I'd like to extend ALL of my arguments, as my opponent feels the only thing that is requisite of him winning is him proving the existence of God (which he has not done), and therefore ignored all but a single subpoint in my first contention. To address my opponents last "speech": "It takes faith to believe in God. It's like trying to prove there is such thing as wind. You cannot see it, but you can see the effects of it. Try to prove that a billion dollars exist. Have you personally seen it? I'll bet you have not. " -There's scientific evidence supporting the existence of wind, whereas the only scientific evidence supporting God is a 2,000~ year old book. "I don't need to make a big fancy argument about whether God exists or not. " -Seeing as your entire case is contingent upon this, I'm pretty sure you do. "Did you read John 1:1? In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. " -This doesn't prove anything. The WORD? Jesus is now also the WORD? John 1:1 does not support your case, in fact you've provided nothing linking to how John 1:1 has any relevance to this debate! Let's look back to something you said earlier "We as Christians, believe Jesus is equal to God as stated in John 1:1. " I don't see it being stated there, in fact the WORD sounds more probable to being the Holy Doctrine than anything else. To recap, my opponent has not proven anything throughout the course of this debate. He's given one example to help support the idea of Jesus being equal to God, however he has not shown how this example holds any relevance, in fact he hasn't even explained it past simply stating it. He also has not addressed 75% of my contentions, and only when he has he has done it minutely and addressed the smallest detail of a much larger structure. As you can see, the Pro side has proven nothing, has shown nothing, and has given a single verse of scripture to help entirely prove his case. Any logical being must weigh the arguments presented, and you see that I have clearly disproved the resolution several times over.
The true nature of Jesus Christ being equal to God (For Jehovah Witnesses who think God made Jesus)

It takes faith to believe in God. It's like trying to prove there is such thing as wind. You cannot see it, but you can see the effects of it. Try to prove that a billion dollars exist. Have you personally seen it? I'll bet you have not. I don't need to make a big fancy argument about whether God exists or not. Did you read John 1:1? In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.
The true nature of Jesus Christ being equal to God (For Jehovah Witnesses who think God made Jesus)

I would just like to extend the following points, 1) Jesus is unequal physically. My opponent has not proven that God exists, therefore as Jesus physically exists, right now you can see that I have proven him unequal physically. 2) Jesus is unequal morally. My opponent has not addressed both Jesus doubting God, as well as Jesus' hairstyle being against the scripture. 3)Jesus commands less respect than God. Another point my opponent has not addressed, I'd like to elaborate upon it further. If God is omniscient, then he knew what was going to happen to Jesus and what Jesus would do when he created Jesus, therefore the glory of dying for humankind's sins falls to God, not Jesus. 4)Jesus does not have the same attributes as God. My opponent has not addressed omniscience, however he has addressed death - which I'll address below. My opponent contends that Jesus made himself vulnerable, and therefore is still immortal, however the fact that he died disproves immortality. Immortal means, according to . http://dictionary.reference.com...: "not mortal; not liable or subject to death;" as Jesus Christ MADE himself liable to death, we see that he forfeited his immortality, which removes that characteristic, making him unequal to God. As you can see, my opponent has addressed almost none of my case, and has only posted a lucrative side point which is easily batted away.
Education nowadays should be mostly computerized

I used to be a programmer and today I am an information security consultant. I am a business management graduate. My argument is that, technology could replace most of the learning today. Today you can, - Upload lessons on the web. - Share resources together like reading material and exam papers. - Regulate progress and attendance via different apps including geolocation apps. - Community support in forums by the teacher and other students. - New apps can be developed to drill the material or hold the material in form of notes. - If presence is required, in case of some lab or field work. Such arrangement could be made by the school. Pros: - Low tuition. - More compliant students since they struggle against the technology instead of a teacher (Technology is a method of control in organizations and it is supported by research to work). - Students can go on their own pace instead of others and complete more material. The disadvantage is that people socialize less when they dont attend school. But it is not an issue educators should be concerned about. Another disadvantage that such plan is mostly suitable for students above a certain age (high school) kids.. because they have more discipline to commit themselves to studying. Below such age, all responsibility falls on the parents.
Education nowadays should be mostly computerized

His first real argument is that there aren't enough resources for all students. Again, if you would prefer to work with technology that's fine. if you prefer to use an E-Book that's great. But the passing of the resolution would compel EVERYONE to use it. and it's simply not best for every student. next, he states that since lectures aren't recorded so you could research irrelevant things. or you could borrow a classmate's notes or talk to the professor after your next lesson. he states that some lecturers are very bad. Unless you plan on somehow eliminating professors, they would still have to be the ones to record your notes which would result in a poor professor producing poor video notes. I'm going to skip down to where he ties in computerized learning. 1. again, putting resources online would be a supplement but not the primary method of education ( I would like to point out that he in no way contests that his position as pro advocates for the elimination, or near elimination, of traditional learning methods. thus all of his points involving potential supplements to learning are approaching non-topicality) If you want to use online resources I'm perfectly fine with you doing that. I want students to have that choice. Emphasis on choice. 2. His next point about recording lectures has a few fundamental flaws. first off, some professors teach the same course for a long time thus by the time they retire the curriculum is likely to have changed meaning that a bad professor may be teaching current information while the old professor may be teaching outdated or non-topical information. moreover, this is still just an online resource. recording a traditional lecture for later viewing is not making education "mostly computerized" 3. again creating an app would be supplementation not changing the primary method of education. Stop treating them like the same thing. they're not. 4. This paragraph dips into some frankfurter50 or backwardseden level insults. I'm not going to stoop to your level so I'll just address your points and move on. My plan involves people being able to select the method of learning that's best for them. in my plan, they wouldn't have to try significantly harder because they are being compelled to learn in a method that doesn't suit them. The student would have the freedom to choose their method of learning. Your plan involves compulsion and forcing some students to learn in a method that doesn't suit their minds or personality. 5 I believe this program could be helpful if a student is allowed to choose it instead of being forced into it. In conclusion, my plan is all about the freedom of choice. the student must have the ability to choose between virtual learning and traditional learning so everyone can learn in an environment suited to their individual needs.
Education nowadays should be mostly computerized

First, my opponent states that we could push a button that lets students tell the school that they are present. but in order to make it to where they eliminate truancy, they would have to press the button in every class. at that point why not just take attendance like it's always been done. my opponent states that there is no evidence that face-to-face learning is better than virtual learning. 2013 - Xu, D. & Jaggars, S. S. Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences Across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas Community College Research Center at Columbia University 2002 - Brown, B. W. & Liedholm, C. E. Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? American Economics Review 92, 444-448 A533; May 2002 2000 - Efendioglo, A. & Murray, L. W. Education at a Distance: Teaching Executives in China T.H.E. Journal, January 2000, 27(6) 2002 - Hartzoulakis, V. Investigating Computer Mediated Instruction in a Greek State Lykeio Doctoral Dissertation, 2002 2009 - Ferguson, J., Tryjankowski, A. Online Versus Face-to-face Learning: Looking at Modes of Instruction in Master's-level Courses Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 33, Issue 3, August. 219-228 And many more. what I meant in 5 was that you need to encode the information in a face-to-face environment then an app could help to reinforce it. But it should not be the primary mode of encoding. No, you won't have google on the exam. and every citation I've provided shows that face-to-face instruction is the best way to make sure that the information is in long term memory. As my citations in my first post show, using the internet to learn inhibits long term encoding. "What's actually driving up tuition are the redundant administrative positions that are growing in number. not hiring professors. but that's a debate for another day. And that point shows that you like talking about something else and not address my point. I was talking about them being high in the current rate. Not why they are growing." The reason they are high in the current rate is because of the redundant positions. Not because of traditional learning. Again, I said that an online community could be HELPFUL but should not be the primary method of learning. Yes, you do need to encode information into long term memory before you can reinforce it. I don't see what's hilarious about it.
Education nowadays should be mostly computerized

The point about tracking someone, bothers you. Lets use a simpler way of confirming attendance. Scanning the schools bar code or simply using an app that with a button press, sends your location to the school. A lot of your address my previous points, but they dont counter-argue them. For example, the fourth point, is absolutely your personal statement, which says that face-to-face teaching defeat virtual learning. There is no research supporting that argument. Doctors, hi-tech people, scientists, lawyers etc, use the internet. Number 5 is exactly my point. Why to reiterate it? 6.7. I never said that I would use google during the exam. "the information encoded into long term memory as a result face to face communication is the best known methodology for facilitating encoding." That just shows how little psychology you know. "What's actually driving up tuition are the redundant administrative positions that are growing in number. not hiring professors. but that's a debate for another day." And that point shows that you like talking about something else and not address my point. I was talking about them being high in the current rate. Not why they are growing. "Having an online community to help you would be beneficial as long as it was used as a supplement to what was taught in the lecture." True. You just reiterated my pro argument. "Information must first be encoded into long term memory in the lecture, " Here is that last hilarious closing statement again.
Education nowadays should be mostly computerized

I agree mostly with what my opponent says in his first paragragh OUTSIDE of a school environment. You need to encode the information into long term memory because they won't let you make a google search on your exams. My opponent argues that you can store information in the digital realm so you can access it after your time in school is over. If your incredibly concerned with being able to have access to your 10th grade history class twenty years down the line then this argument is completely valid. However, most people are more concerned with getting high marks on their exams which requires mnemonic encoding. 1. if you lose focus on the lecture and you find yourself without an answer, chances are your class has assigned homework. if you find yourself without an answer on the homework you can look up the answer and incorporate it into the notes thus facilitating encoding. 2. yes, you can print the paper but if you learned it on the computer attempting to encode it on paper will still be more difficult. And I'm not saying that computerized learning has no meritorious traits. Simply that there needs to be a balance to ensure the most efficient learning. 3. It's not the right of the university to track the movements of its students. it's invasive. At work you can sign a contract. I wouldn't want my workplace to track my location either. This point is one of the smaller ones in both of our cases. 4. I believe these websites are great tools to facilitate learning as a supplement to what was taught in a lecture. to enforce this method of learning upon all students when many learn best from face to face instruction would defeat the purpose of these learning supplements. 5 again. these apps could be used as a supplement to learning and could be used to drill information that has already been encoded to increase the ease of access by drilling synaptic pathways. 6.7. Again, since you won't have access to google on the exam you will need the information encoded into long term memory as a result face to face communication is the best known methodology for facilitating encoding. What's actually driving up tuition are the redundant administrative positions that are growing in number. not hiring professors. but that's a debate for another day. 8. I don't think we were on the same page for the first part of this. For getting help from the teacher I was referring more to High school. Tutors were more for college. Having an online community to help you would be beneficial as long as it was used as a supplement to what was taught in the lecture. Information must first be encoded into long term memory in the lecture, then it may be supplemented with whatever means work best for you.
Isn't it enough to be careful frm my side not to stand in the middle of the busy roadbut on footpath

My opponent was off topic this whole debate, only stating hurtful things while inferring that I am female. Throughout this debate he has, through his own ignorance, stated inappropriate words, which I will list below. "My opponent is careless, rash and stupid. " "She is a eunuch who is afraid" "she is just like the other girls who grows breasts on her chest and gets afraid" "Preferably, she should only stay at home, play with dolls and learn to cook. " "Debating is not her cup of tea. " ". .. "she is unable to catch mice" ". .. this eunuch or transgender" " you should go to a De-addiction Center for getting rid of the habitual consumption of alcohol and drugs" "you will not land up in jail, or in hospital, but straightaway in the morgue were your corpse will be kept. " " According to this eunuch, she should make sure to never enter a building" "Perhaps she likes living in a slum and she posting comments from there as living in a slum is not a stress according to her" Although there is much more, I will end with that. My opponent himself admitted that his spelling/grammar was inferior in a rude way, which is a spelling/grammar point. ". I understand from the fact that she is not an IT literate and has poor knowledge of Information Technology, that is why in frustration she is using the knowledge of English but I challenge her knowledge of IT in response to her challenging my English grammar. She has ignored the fact that it is prestigious and more beneficial to know about IT than to know about English as even those like Copernicus, Galileo etc did not know English but where smarter than Shakespeare who knew English very well. Her actions just prove the idiom for her in my language where a frustrated cat scratches the pillar when she is unable to catch mice. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! !! ROFL-LOL! ! :D :D. " For cites? I clearly had more in quantity and in reliability when it comes to sources. My opponent used contradicted his statements with his own sources, so therefore it is not very reliable after all. And finally, for convincing arguments. The resolution asks if my opponent was right to stand near the swamp, and I gave him answers. No. You should have not stood near the swamp, because there are many more possible routes to where you are going. My opponent changed the story many times throughout his arguments, by saying he was watering your plants. If you were watering your plants in your own property, You would not need to be on the footpath in the first place.
Isn't it enough to be careful frm my side not to stand in the middle of the busy roadbut on footpath

Before I answer my opponent's questions I will state why his "arguments" are wrong. "NOW A STUPID PERSON SAYS THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE STOOD NEAR THE SWAMP." A wise man once said, do not stand near swamps. You should have followed his words. You can not infer that he has a low I.Q because as you stated, You have never seen him before. "It is stupid to think that only one person should follow all the duties while the other is privileged by all the rights in the world." Based on your stories, apparently the driver has to follow driving rules while you are privileged by all the rights in the world, to be able to go on "the footpath near the swamp." "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D." This sentence does not make sense. The word HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is not in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and neither is ROFL, LOL or :D. By putting a colon in front of the capital d, my opponent failed to put any information behind the colon which is a grammatical error. My opponent also starts, which I infer is laughing, while talking about rights and privileges. I believe my opponent has a form of laughing disorder, and should be scheduled to psychiatric evaluation. " It is the government's responsibility to repair depressions in the road as we pay taxes for that." The government also should not have put it next to a swamp. "Actually, I was standing because I was watering my plants near my doorstep which I had the right to do so" My opponent seems to be confused on what actually happened, because he changes his story throughout the first "argument" "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D" My opponent plagiarized from another source [1] and therefore should go to jail for plagiarizing. He has failed to state where, in the first argument, he plagiarized letter by letter from the previous "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D" Once again, a grammatical error. "DO YOU THINK I WAS WRONG IN STANDING NEAR THE SWAMP?" Yes. Here are my reasons. 1) You shouldn't stand near a swamp 2) You should not go near a moving bus 3) You shouldn't have used the footpath that was near a swamp 4) You shouldn't have paid your taxes that makes roads near swamps 5) You endangered children's lives by standing near the bus. 6) You should never have used the sentence HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D 7) You should have never created this debate. Thank you.
Education can be a boundary for imagination.

We've all been hearing this phrase probably our entire lives- "Imagination has no boundaries./ Imagination knows no bounds". It may indeed be true. The same way, I believe that education can be a boundary for imagination. You may now ask me how? There are several examples I can give in order to support the topic. Let us suppose that I do not know the meaning of debate and also that I have absolutely no idea about the Internet. Now, considering these circumstances I wouldn't be able to imagine the working of debate.org . So, don't you think if I was educated enough to know what debate and the Internet is, in the hypothetical situation, I would very well be able to understand what debate.org is? Therefore, I truly think education can be a boundary for imagination. Why else are educated people more creative?