BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Learning Better Than Understanding.

Unfortunately, since my opponent has not responded, I will attack his original resolution, and allow my counter to his resolution to stand alone. By referring to learning 'like a parrot', my opponent is clearly stating that memorization is not better than understanding, or comprehension. I would like to contend this point on the basis that though comprehension is more valuable than mere memorization, only through memorization is one ABLE to comprehend. This logic does not apply to innate and instinctive practices, but we are arguing about learning. Since one cannot 'learn' to comprehend or understand something, one must first memorize, and only when memorization has occurred, one can synthesize thoughts (comprehend) on one's own. These are the 4 steps to understanding: Unconsciously Incompetent (don't know they don't know how to accomplish the skill, task or perform the activity Consciously Incompetent (know they don't know how to accomplish the skill, task or perform the activity) Consciously Competent (know how but need to concentrate to perform the skill, task or activity) Unconsciously Competent (know how to accomplish the skill, task or activity without thinking about it) This helps explain that only through conscious labor of thought (memorization), can something come to be second nature. This model, developed by educational philosopher at Unisa, shows that only through memorization, can understanding be obtained: Literal = Facts Lateral = Context (historical, political, geographical etc) Critical = What's behind all this? Speculative = What will happen next? This also exemplifies the dependance of the former on the later, causally. I thus contend, learning is better than understanding, because of the causal implications of learning are the only way to developed understanding. Thank you all Sources: http://www.fregger.com... http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au...
Is Learning Better Than Understanding.

It is, after all, no doubt a clever strategy to set a debate at 2 rounds, not to state your resolution, get to pick the topic, and give your opponent the burden of proof. It would be foolish for me to fall into this. I have my resolution on this topic, but since you started the debate, you are to state your resolution first, and I'll give you the second round to do it. The way these online debates work, is the advantage of choosing the topic is balanced by the contender speaking lastly, thus removing him of the burden of proof. I hope you can see how absurd it would be for me to willingly give both of these to you. I await your response.
Mutualy Assured Destruction

Arguments: Contention 1: Precluding Nuclear ConflictMutually Assured Destruction, though intitially developed to ensure the mutual destruction of Russia, precluded a nuclear conflict with Russia. MAD exisisted partially due to the fact that there never was (nor still is) an effective way to shoot down an ICBM or SBLM. Without an effective way to shoot down these missiles in the event of a nuclear strike and retaliation, all involved parties would suffer complete anhialation. Love-of-life was valued more than total destruction, thus, a potential military conflict did not occur. Becuase of MAD, both sides were literally afraid to launch the first-strike. If one of the involved nations did so much as increase its nuclear-systems alertness, the other involved nation would launch nuclear missiles on warning (called fail-deadly). [1]_____________________________________________________________________________[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Evolution is more viable than creationism

I find it severely hypocritical of Pro to use sources such as this: http://www.biblica.com... and then demand that Con doesn't use any Bible-related sources to clarify points on Creationism. Pro's explanation of how evolution made the eyes come from blob, or bacterium, is a joke. It doesn't explain how, or why, bacteria change their form into an eye, it only explained how they'd asexually reproduce into more and more bacteria via mitosis. He states how prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes by this explanation: (1) Let's imagine we have two bacteria, bacteria A and bacteria B. (2) A eats B (how the heck does a bacteria eat another bacteria of its size?) (3) B is now a 'house guest' in A (what the...?) (4) Fallaciously claims that mitosos alters the genetic code, when, in fact, only meiosis is capable of this. [http://www.nature.com...] (5) There is suddenly a group of cells that are bacterial cells B and A combined, replicated. (6) Abracadabra... They magically evolved into a Lizard that can think, see, hear, feel, touch, taste and smell. In all honesty, this sounds a little like some magical powers a certain God I know supposedly has... He doesn't deny that we are conscious beings of free will, instead he justifies that Uranium into lead justifies that we are conscious. That is just... Well... I don't even know how to describe the flaw severity of this logic. If natural selection were true, only one primate and one horse-type would have successfully evolved via natural selection. Instead, many are coexisting despite being different. This is because Creationism incorporates all animals as part of God's master-plan and that is the truth. Notice how every single rebuttal to Pro's round 2 was completely ignored and only my questions at the end were addressed. God made evolution seem true to test the faith of Christians. Those who fall into the traps of scientific worship shall be punished for failing to worship the right deity! It is just as plausible as the 'abracadabra' of a lizard popping up out of nowhere and just as plausible as the sentience we all hold dear "evolving" form a completely non-sentient being, in capable of sentience to begin with. Why are plants non sentient abut animals sentient? Evolutionists will never know! I conclude that Pro has failed to mean their BoP and that evolution is not more viable than Creationism.
Evolution is more viable than creationism

Creationism, alone, has no viable evidence that it is true other than the Bible, whilst evolution has many supporting factors in this topic. Such as the study of the relations between apes and Humans. It provides an explanation for species development and origination. Creationism, to my believe, has no evidence to support its claim other than the bible. The bible cannot be a viable source in anyway possible. Thank you in advance to my opponent
Video Rap battle

Hey Snell - Thanks for the challenge :) Rules: 1. You may rap straight a capella or use background beats 2. No verse(s) can be longer than 2 minutes in length Judging Paradigms: 1. Before - Who you think was a better rapper before this debate 2. After - Who you think the better rapper is after the debate 3. Conduct - Who had the better come-backs 4. Spelling and Grammar - Vote based on who had the best flow and/or delivery 5. Convincing Arguments - Self explanatory 6. Sources - Lyrical content, creativity and rhyme structure Your proposed structure for each round sounds fine -- Bring it.
Video Rap battle

Whats up L Werd.. Since everyone seems to like the video rap battles and You and I seem to both be undefeated... How about we go at it to see who remains undefeated? =) Sounds fun to me!! You can set some structure rules in your 1st round post if you'd like... Wish you luck.. If you son't get scared ;-) 2nd round- About why you're "so fly" 3rd round- Against your opponents previous round 4th round- Free 4 all
Resolved: Wikileaks has threatened U.S. National Security

1. Assange has stated in many interviews that he does not oppose governments concealing certain things for practical necessity, but rather the abuse of this practice, which has no check. Wikileaks provides a way for sources to anonymously leak information, if Wikileaks deems it necessary. Daniel Ellsberg, a former U.S. military analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers, which exposed that President Johnson had systematically lied to and mislead the public and Congress. He stated that if he had leaked the papers today, "I would be called not only a traitor—which I was then, which was false and slanderous—but I would be called a terrorist... Assange and Bradley Manning are no more terrorists than I am." Wikileaks does not undermine critical information exchange. It provides a check on governmental abuses of their monopoly on government secrets. Assange also stated in the interview that public figures need not be afraid of secrets being exposed, unless they are abusing their right to have secrets. Diplomats can still have private cables unless they are abusive. In the same way that restrictions and protocols are put on police for investigations to keep their power in check, governments need a check on their power of secrecy as well. A policeman might see jumping through the hoops of legal procedure irritating, but it is necessary to combat abuse. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziï¿½re stated that Wikileaks is "annoying, but not a threat". Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself has said that the release of the cables, while embarrassing, does not threaten US national security. He also said that Wikileaks did not threaten any sensitive information regarding the war on terror or diplomatic relations. Wikilieaks is arguably a media organization, like the New York Times or the Guardian. Wikileaks did not "steal" this information – it was provided to it from another individual or set of individuals. Saying Wikileaks is a threat to national security is like saying that the New York Times is a threat to national security if it publishes leaked information provided to it. 2 and 3 Therefore points 2 and 3 are irrelevant, as multiple governments have stated that it is not threatening any critical information or international cohesion. It only threatens abuse of government powers, which keeps power in check and increases national security, by preventing government officials from lying to the public. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.defense.gov... http://www.wired.com... http://www.spiegel.de... http://www.democracynow.org... http://www.planetdebate.com... some arguments put in exact words of sources.
Prohibition is needed

Alcohol is believed to reduce coronary disease because it has been found to increase the good HDL cholesterol and have anticlotting effects. Other benefits have been suggested, too. A small study in China found that cognitively impaired elderly patients who drank in moderation did not deteriorate as quickly as abstainers. A report from the Framingham Offspring Study found that moderate drinkers had greater mineral density in their hipbones than nondrinkers. So you think its bad? Vote me!
Future American Generations Face a Dismal Future

I must first start by stating that I find Kyznet"s optimistic attitude refreshing and encouraging. However, data does not lie and presents a very different outlook than Kyznet portrays. The fact is that American students are not "intellectually superior" as Kyznet states. According to the New York Times in an article titled, U.S. Students Still Lag Globally in Math and Science, Tests Show by Motoko Rich, the United States is lagging way behind its counterparts in other parts of the world. Rich states, "Only 7 percent of students reached the advanced level in eighth-grade math, while 48 percent of eighth graders in Singapore and 47 percent of eighth graders in South Korea reached the advanced level." Recently a large study was conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This study tested over half a million kids in 65 countries. American students came in 30th on the exam falling into the below average category behind Canada, Poland, Korea, India and China. Kyznet points out that more Americans are attending college now than in the 1990s. While it is true that more Americans are attending college today, this factor is only slightly true with an increase in education from 31% of Generation X to 33% in today"s current Millennial generation. See the Digest of Educational Statistics on the nces.ed.gov website. Also there is a reported increase in students getting degrees that are not in mathematics and hard sciences. I agree that the US is full of bright creative innovators, however the overall population is decreasing in its technological, scientific, and mathematics skills. Middle School and High School students are testing much lower than average and tech companies are having to import many jobs to better qualified candidates. It is true that the US continues to be the leader in technological and scientific industries and continues to have the highest rated universities in the world. However, this does not prove anything for the current American young person as these institutions also import great minds from all over the world. The fact is that in the United States people used to be able to get jobs building cars, planes, TVs, and refrigerators. Today we do not produce that many hard commodities. Instead we produce technology and technological services. References: Layton, L. (2013, December 2). U.S. students lag around average on international science, math and reading test. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 29, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com... Historical summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06. (n.d.). Historical summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06. Retrieved May 29, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov... Key findings - OECD. (n.d.). PISA 2012 Results. Retrieved May 29, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org... Rich, M. (2012, December 12). U.S. Students Still Lag Globally in Math and Science, Tests Show. The NY Times. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com...
Future American Generations Face a Dismal Future

Changes are already being made to provide a richer educational experience for our youths and the number of college-graduates has increased drastically since the late 1990's. During the twenty-first century, the amount of college-graduated students have skyrocketed and the curriculum is steadily becoming more advanced, more thought-out, and more important with funding and recognition! With this influx of intellectually superior graduates, many have a degree in technological fields in which we're becoming more and more dependent on. Many inventions, such as touch-screen phones and wireless connection, has made clear communication and information ready for us to use. Without the limitations of traveling to a library to study on books, students can use applications to talk efficiently, study online with great resources, and have instructional materials online for ease of use and compatible learning. Already, the United States makes technological breakthroughs and demonstrates a strong workforce. Our future is being held by fully-educated workers and high school drop outs are less than ever! More students are applying their knowledge into everyday problems and the skills taught in studies are showing. Groups such as AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination) and school-support groups are dramatically growing! AVID students are collected from the average grade group and are instructed on how to get scholarships, teaching them determination to work hard, and to take challenging, rigorous courses. Students learning with advanced placements and honors are everywhere and it's hard to find someone in college who hasn't taken one or two AP classes! This proves their intellect and how they can prove their ability to utilize it in situations. Still, the United States has a strong technological prowess, but our agriculture is maintained even better than most countries! We produce healthy foods, contain strong regulations to prohibit disease and health problems, and are inspiring people to take online colleges if they dropped out, leaving them another chance. We have a plentiful amount of brilliant minds from various parts of the world immigrate into our society and contribute to our growth. Our policy is heavily guarded by many safety-protocols and a net to make sure we won't fall in any accident. We have lived 237 years of history and became a superpower in that time. If we survived through the Great Depression, we're certain to survive against other, competitive countries with our amazing generation of learners, willpower, and sheer strength!
Future American Generations Face a Dismal Future

Today we are seeing a drastic change in regards to the American economy. We have switched from a country of manufacturing and agriculture, to a country whose economy is based on technology and services. At the same time, the US is falling drastically behind other developing nations in regards to science and mathematics. Many people believe that the current and future American generations will struggle in a competitive globalized world where other nations are producing smarter and better-equipped young people. I motion that unless drastic changes are made to our education system and to people"s mindsets in regards to the importance of education that our economic future looks bleak.
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

My defense and conclusion:Katana It seems reasonable to assume that zombies, being partially decayed, would have a weaker bone structure than living humans. As such, a single swing with a sharp katana could reasonably decapitate a zombie. Unlike a trench spike, where even the cleanest kill needs a pause afterwards, a skilled swordfighter could string together a series of slashes to kill many zombies efficiently. As for Pro's argument that his arms put three feet of room between him and a zombie, that only applies if you're walking with your arms out straight. Personally, I leave that to the zombies. Baseball batI was in fact talking about aluminum bats, just to get that clear. It would make a good club, and as you pointed out, make up for the manageability issues of a katana at less than a foot or so (although I think two feet away should be fine). Although a crowbar is more conventional tool than a baseball bat, two of the three things you mention in its favour (breaking windows, prying open doors) can be accomplished either by a baseball bat or a machine gun. And prying out nails is irrelevant unless you're trying to build something, in which case even a crowbar won't help you. You say that "if I am fighting a horde, the logical thing to do would be to run", and imply that this excuses the crowbar for being a generally inefficient weapon. The fact that you can possibly avoid combat entirely is irrelevant to the question, which is about the crowbar's effectiveness as a weapon. And like I said, if you tried fighting with it, you'd get tired and die. Machine gun This is definitely a last-resort weapon. Its power is offset by the noise it makes - though I would choose a model with a suppressor - and I would only use it if I was in imminent danger. Unlike Pro, my plan in a zombie apocalypse is not to wander the countryside sniping zombies with a crossbow. My plan is to hide and survive as long as I can. The ammunition isn't an issue. I live in a large city, and when I chose this as a weapon I assumed I would be able to find a gun shop or police station with ammunition in it. If that isn't a valid option, I'll turn the question around: where are you planning to find crossbow bolts? SummaryI have effectively addressed the noise issue, by pointing out that my plan is to avoid firing if possible, and to instead keep the gun as a powerful last resort. If I'm firing it, chances are the zombies have already noticed me. The "effectiveness in the field" criterion seems to have been thrown in to add some weight to Pro's side, because a crowbar is a marginally useful tool. On closer examination, though, he can only name three uses for it, all three of which are variations on "break something". Baseball bats are plenty good at breaking things too, and I've never seen a door that can be pried open but not smashed open. Pro must face facts and admit that weapons are one thing, and tools another; anybody with a hope of surviving a zombie apocalypse would have a separate toolbox anyways.
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

Yes the defense is for the conclusion. Just do not introduce any new arguments. Defense and conclusion: Trench Spike If I am in close quarters, it would be more effective, and if not at least that, just as effective as a Katana. There would have to be a brief moment of dislodging(although fast, the spike isn't that thick), but even with a Katana, you still couldn't kill lets say, 10 zombies all at once. You would have to attack them as individuals. Lets just go with the argument that you would have to crush the skull of the zombie, a katana would still need to be dislodged from the zombies head. If we said that they could be decapitated like con stated earlier, you would have to take one swing, then another, and so on. Con states that I would have to get within approximately six inches to the zombie in order to kill it, however, I do have limbs called "arms" that give me approximately 2.5 - 3 feet away from the zombie, plus the extra length of the spike, whether it be six inches or more. Crowbar Con actually admits: "A crowbar is a useful tool, and definitely a good thing to have in an emergency situation. "This proves the original criteria of the debate as the superior weapon would have purpose outside of killing zombies. The shape is better than a baseball bat, as it is spiked/has an edge, better for penetration of the skull. Plus if I am fighting a horde, the logical thing to do would be to run. Even if you had a crowbar or a baseball bat, you couldn't kill lets say 50 zombies at one battle. Crossbow Con states: " taking out individual enemies silently at medium range. At long range, you'd probably miss, and at close range you'd be overwhelmed while reloading. "Con admits it is silent, and good for range. At long range however, they would be quite effective. I am not sure what Cons idea of "long range" is, but standard crossbows are usually accurate to 40 yards, sometimes 50 yards. I would say that's a good distance. At short distance, I could shoot one, then take out my handy dany crowbar or spike. Con has yet to argue against the noise caused by the gun, as that would be a zombie magnet, placing him more in danger, while my character would be silent with all weapons. The crowbar has multiple uses through the field, while Con has failed to show that any of his weapons are useful beyond killing zombies, one of the criteria I had posted in round one. I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. This has been a rather fun one, different from the repeating gay marriage, abortion, and drug debates.