BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
free will school

I mean that students have their own right to learn what they want to learn and nothing is forced. First children go to day care, where they can do what they want in the limits of safety and the area of the day care facility. In my point of view day care should already be the place where kids can start learning, because there is no certain age for a human to start learning things that are thought in schools. So parents can decide when to put their child in to day care, which is a place where their children can do what they want and when a child in day care starts to ask questions about life, there will be no straight answers, but they are given the opportunity to go on classes about the subject that they are interested and learn throught that. This way we never kill the hunger of information, but we feed it properly and children will learn everything that they are thought, because they want to learn it. There is never no forcing to anything, but children will have the guidance by the day cares employees to subjects that the children are, or could be interested. Basically school is day care unless you want to learn something and when you want to learn, you have that possibility. classes of course have to go in a schedule in which the teachers have planned and the system is very different than it is now. There can be big differentials in the ages of people in the same class, but everybody is there by their own will and they are all there because they want to be. There will be limits in classes that you have to know how to read in classes where you really need to know that, same as you need to understand some words before going to some classes or you have to know math or different language etc. If it is really necessary. This way the system teaches you everything that a school would nowdays teach, but it would all happen in a way that people would really learn everything that they are thought and without every problem that the system creates today. Excuse me if there are some language issues english is not my native language.
free will school

Not anymore! First, you deny part of free will school, by saying that kids can't choose their own school subjects, which is my first contention. Secondly, without grades how do you know if the kid understood the subject and to what extent? Thirdly, how does school reduce our creativity if not augment it. Could you not say that learning these subjects makes kids think and augment their imagination? And how are they going to implying the real world without knowing basic core information? Lastly, school has been one of the greatest invents of human kind, A place where people can be systematically and orderly educated for the future. It has worked since it's invention, why should we go to a undefined disorganized and chaotic system when we already established the ideal system?
Alexander the Great is the best military commander in history.

In this round, I will rebut my opponent, clear up my sources, and boil down to show why Alexander really is the greatest. First off, most of my agreements have come from ABC news, history channel and History of macedonia, (Alexander the great biography), which are 3 reliable and respected sources. My first 2 sources were just websites that published lists on the greatest military generals ever, so they were not used for pure fact. I was just showing why some other people think he's the best ever. I would also like to rebut my opponents argument on "Imagine if he had more time". Subutai was called back at the age of 65, and he died at 72. So even if he wasn't called back, he would only have had 7 years to keep conquering. If Alexander had to stop fighting at the age of 65, he would have already conquered Europe, Asia and most of Africa! Subutai had 33 more years to fight then Alexander, who died at 32. That means that Subutai had more time to fight than Alexander's time! (That is dating Alexander and Subutai started conquering at 1) I would like to continue to rebut my opponents point on that Subutai conquered the most territory ever. I have stated and given a source that Alexander conquered 2 million square miles. I would like to know, from my opponent, how sure miles did Subutai conquer. In the 11 years Alexander spent fighting, Alexander conquered 181,818 square miles per year. That is incredible. Now I will boil down and simplify my arguments to show why Alexander it truly the greatest. 1. He never lost a battle 2. In just 11 years he conquered 2 million square miles 3. Alexander lived almost 2,000 years before Subutai, so he had little to no maps and knowledge of where he was going 4. He fought different tactics than he had ever seen and still won (Such as India using elephants) 5. He had a significant amount of less time than Subutai to conquer For all these reasons, Alexander is better than Subutai.
Alexander the Great is the best military commander in history.

I would first like to talk to you about my sources and their sophistication. While I did use to sources as reference, they were not my ENTIRE argument like my opponent. I used my sources to show that their was a common thought in my argument, and that it was not a made up fact out of the blue. You next say that I did not rebut your "fact" that "main points that he never lost and that he conquered 2 million square miles in just 11 years". That is true in a way. At the beginning of the debate i was unclear on the rules. I believed that we weren't aloud to rebut in the first 3 rounds, but only in the last. For that I apologize. Either way was that a point to rebut. Facts are just that FACTS. We agree (I hope) that we are both using real facts, and not fallacies. This is a debate. We debate an opinion not squabble over our opponents facts. I would like to address it though. You say that he was on his way to "conquering more", but he died as if he was alone in this. As I stated earlier in the previous round Subutai was recalled in 1241 after the death of the Khan. Imagine if he had had more time. I apologis in its shortness and lack of more points I have been very busy the last 2 days.
Alexander the Great is the best military commander in history.

I would like to clear some things up about my sources. The ABC news article contained some of my arguments. I copied the paragraphs as an introduction to how amazing he was, and to show some expert's opinions. This round I will add some arguments from that article, and I put the link there so people could read it, so I don't have to copy the whole article. My opponent also called my sources unreliable, but my opponent has used wiki answers and yahoo answers as sources. Anybody can post anything on those sources they want, so those are not reliable. My opponent never rebutted my main points that he never lost and that he conquered 2 million square miles in just 11 years (History Channel). I would like to rebut some of my opponents arguments. He claims that Subutai was the greatest military commander ever because he conquered the most land. Alexander conquered all of the known land in 11 years, without maps, (abc news article) and some of the unknown. He was on his way to conuering China, when he developed fever and died. So he would have conquered a ton of more land, but he got sick very young. It is that amazing that he could do in in such a short period of time. I would also like my opponent to show a direct number on the amount of land Subutai conquered, with that source. Alexander was an influence to future conquerers such as Caesar, Pompay, and Napoleon. (Alexander the Great biography). At the battle of Granicus, Alexander faced an army similar to his size, at 40,000. In the battle he only lost 120, while destroying the other side. There were 2,000 survivors from his opponents, who were captured. (Alexander the Great Biography on historyofmacedonia). During the battle of Issus, Alexander was GREATLY outnumbered, while facing elite soldiers from Syria, along with Persians. King Darius fled in terror, and Alexander dominated. In India, Alexanders greatest achievement came during the battle at the Hydaspes, against king Porus. (One of the most powerful men in India) They invaded the heavily guarded river and won a battle even though the Indians had horses, which the Greeks had never even seen before. That just about sums up Alexanders incredible campaign. He marched into land he wasn't very familiar with, fought against totally new tactics, and NEVER lost.
Alexander the Great is the best military commander in history.

I will start not with a rebuttal (as stated in the rules), but simply something I have noticed in your "argument". In it you use three sources http://ramymehelba.hubpages.com..., and http://www.freerepublic.com..., and ABC News. I would like to point out that your first two sources are not reputable. Free Republic is a forum site where you can also look up an article about the Huffington Post seeking people who have had sex with aliens. Next http://ramymehelba.hubpages.com... is a HubPage where the author has a profile that says "I Looooooove M i C h A e L J a C k S o N ♥ ♥". Is that really a sight you use for a REAL debate? Finally, I would like to talk about the information you got from ABC news. The info you COPIED from the article. While it is fine to copy small paragraphs, to make 3/4ths of your debate space be covered by it is ridiculous. This is YOUR debate! NOT, a space to paste someone else's article instead of presenting your own ideas backed up by REPUTABLE sources. I will now begin with my own arguments. Subutai was the greatest military commander in history. He directed more than 20 campaigns, won 65 major battles, and conquered 32 separate nations. He didn't lose a single battle, and only ended his career when he was recalled after the death of "gedei Khan. In fact Ch 1 Great Captains Unveiled Liddell Hart ISB 0-8369-0618-7 says, "He conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history." That is a good record. Source: Ch 1 Great Captains Unveiled Liddell Hart ISB 0-8369-0618-7 Subutai wasn't just lucky though. He incorporated the use of new technologies, and creatively used them to gain victories. As New World Encyclopedia says, "He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies". Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... Finally, Subutai was the greatest military commander ever because he could control vast armies from large distances away, and use them comprehensively to create victory. In fact in two battles on the same day against the Polish and the Hungary he commanded two separate armies over 200 miles apart for a victory. 40,000 casualties inflicted to only 1,000 of his own. Sources: http://www.cracked.com..., http://answers.yahoo.com..., http://wiki.answers.com... I rest my argument for this round. Good luck!
Alexander the Great is the best military commander in history.

Thank you for accepting. I believe that Alexander the Great is the best military commander in history because he never lost a battle. He won 10 major battles. It took him 11 years to conquer the whole known world. He was 32 when he died, which and he was still able to conquer all that land. . http://www.freerepublic.com... calls him, "The undisputed greatest military genius who ever lived" on their list of top 10 military commanders, ranking him #1. Subutai is not even on that list. . http://ramymehelba.hubpages.com... also ranks him # 1. "They write he's the leader who hasn't lost a single battle for a long Eleven years of fighting against forces beyond his forces number". Subutai is not on that list either. . http://abcnews.go.com.... On this link, ABC news wrote a multi page article depicting why Alexander is so great. Here are the first three paragraphs "Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Napoleon had a good run before he met his Waterloo. But when it comes to capturing the popular imagination, they can't hold a candle to Alexander the Great. "When you look at the imagination that was necessary to be Alexander, the effect he had on other people's imaginations -- he was head and shoulders above them," said Thomas R. Martin, author of "Ancient Greece. " "Alexander is a legend, but he's not a myth. He's real. What he did -- for better or worse -- shows in the starkest and most exciting terms the lack of limits of human possibility. " Alexander the Great even has Great in his name. Click on the links to read the articles.
Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

My opponent has pointed out a flaw in my definition of 'the'. It appears that I have confused the adverb form 'the' with the pronoun 'thee'. As such, I can no longer make sense of the resolution.By defining 'answer' in noun form and corrupting my OP with a grammatically incorrect statement, my opponent has left me unable to fulfill my BoP. As he stated, it is impossible to prove an incomprehensible Resolution. At this point all I can do is commend my opponent for his foresight. That misdefinition has won you the debate. Were it not for that, the current resolution would allow me to answer the questions, which I could very well do. However the current nonsense resolution prevents me from doing so with any benefit. And with that said, I conclude.
Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

Pro has attempted to decipher the unintelligible resolution by assuming the word "the" can be interpreted as an adverb. His entire argument hinges on this. ""Pro can the correct solution..." It is not entirely impossible to correct this statement. All that is required is a good dictionary" "Let's say 'the' was actually an adverb. This statement now entails that an entity is essentially stating that "Pro" has the ability to do something, to another entity/object known as a 'correct solution'." The major problem here is you cannot use "the" as an adverb here and be grammatically correct. From pro's own dictionary source: Main Entry: 2the Function: adverb Etymology: Middle English, from Old English th83; by that, instrumental of th"t that Date: before 12th century 1 : than before : than otherwise "used before a comparative 2 a : to what extent b : to that extent 3 : beyond all others There is no use of a comparative here, and the resolution is mumbo jumbo. Pro is affirming a statement that he cannot prove, because it doesn't make sense. Since he has the BoP here, he will automatically lose. Pro has valiantly attempted to affirm a statement that makes zero sense, and if you abide by his interpretation of English grammar, he succeeded. His interpretation violates grammatical rules, and the resolution is reduced to unintelligible, and unconfirmable craziness.
Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

In Con's opening statement, he offers another definition for the word answer. I have not given Con permission to change this definition mid-debate! The initial definition will stand until this debate ends as my opponent has no right to shove another option in given his distaste for his first one. I. Cross-examination"...and to achieve this we must have a definition that makes sense."The definition does make sense and I have shown in my previous construct that the current resolution does too. A new definition is not required and is therefore to be rejected."Also to prove the resolution is true, Pro must correctly answer my five questions, to show his answers are correct he must give empirical and verifiable evidence."Allow me to remind the audience of the current resolution.Pro can the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from ConNo where in that resolution is it stated/implied I must answer Con's questions. I explained this resolution already and showed how it does not obligate me to respond to Con's questions. I have also proved the resolution true and my opponent has failed to contest that evidence.Next Con gives me 2 options that he claims are impossible. Allow me to explain why I need to do neither.Option 1. I would have no need to affirm an insensible resolution. The current resolution has been sensibly explained and I have successfully proved it, fulfilling my BoP.Option 2. I will state again, I have no need to answer Con's questions. Doing so will not fulfill my BoP or support the resolution. The resolution does not require me to answer the questions in any way.II. Rebuttal"The OP states that "Pro (AlexanderOc) has the ability to answer 5 questions provided by Con.". Failing to do so will result in a Con victory."The OP was made without Con's definition of 'answer' being applied. Now that it has been applied, the resolution is far different and as stated, requires answering no questions. Failing to confirm the current resolution will lead to a Con victory, but unfortunately for my opponent, I have affirmed the resolution without further contest."This does not waive his need to fulfill the BoP which he has not done. Confirming an unintelligible resolution is still confirming the resolution which requires he fulfill his Burden. "My BoP has not been waived, only my need to answer your questions. I have fulfilled my BoP by explaining the resolution and verifying it. Until Con rebuts my construct, my burden has been filled.III. Final remarksCon has failed to counter my construct and fails to understand that the current resolution does not obligate me to answer his questions.Con has also tried to undermine me by pushing a new definition into the argument without any consent. I hold no responsibility to answer my opponent's questions. I have confirmed my construct, and my BoP has been fulfilled uncontested.As far as debates go, Con seems to be falling behind.
Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

My apologies to Pro, a better definition to achieve a more intelligible definition that is similar, just in verb form, will be:Answer: Provide the required responses to (a test or quiz)- from Oxford English DictionariesPro has granted me the ability to "choose from which source the word "Answer" will be defined." and to achieve this we must have a definition that makes sense. Pro is affirming the resolution and must fulfill the BoP. Also to prove the resolution is true, Pro must correctly answer my five questions, to show his answers are correct he must give empirical and verifiable evidence. Pro has 2 options:1. Attempt to affirm a resolution that makes no sense. Doing this is an impossibility that will result in an unfulfilled BoP.2. Answer the questions according to the intelligible definition. Another impossibility.Pro makes the claim that: "You have no way of knowing who will receive the most votes after this debate concludes, and assuming that number will correlate to the number of questions answered is not supported anywhere in your claim."Basically he says he does not have to answer all five questions to win. The OP states that "Pro (AlexanderOc) has the ability to answer 5 questions provided by Con.". Failing to do so will result in a Con victory.Pro says "So essentially, By giving me the noun definition of "Answer" Con has waived my need to answer his question, turned the Resolution into utter nonsense". This does not waive his need to fulfill the BoP which he has not done. Confirming an unintelligible resolution is still confirming the resolution which requires he fulfill his Burden. I once again provide Pro the chance to answer my questions...
Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

Definitions from Oxford English Dictionaries Answer: The correct solution to a question in a test or quiz. Quiz: A test of knowledge, especially a brief, informal test given to students. Note that the definition of quiz includes the word "especially", not always. Therefore I will quiz pro with five questions, and he must provide a completely correct answer to every single question. He must prove that the answer is correct in an empirical and verifiable way. The burden of proof is clearly impossible. A single unanswered or incorrectly answered quiz question results in a Con victory. The majority of my questions do not have answers at this point. The "possibility" of pro being right is irrelevant since Pro has affirmed that he is right. Questions: 1. "Is the universe heading towards a big freeze, a big rip, a Big Crunch, or a big bounce?" 2. "Can gravitational waves be directly detected?" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) 3. "Is there a world independent of human beliefs and representations?" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) 4. What kind of phone do I own? 5. What will be the date of my death? Pro must answer these questions correctly.
Global Anarchy is unsustainable

Anarchist Morality by P. Kropotkin. "The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. Then thought frees herself from the chains with which those interested --rulers, lawyers, clerics-- have carefully enwound her. " 1) Lets say that tomorrow all states would be dissolved, but would we expropriate all land? If we dissolve the states tomorrow, there would be mass chaos, and the person with the most guns would come into power. Anarchy is nearly impossible to start when governments have already existed. 2) There would be no disaster relief (Cities would be self interested once Global Anarchy is in action) thus leaving millions of lives at the mercy of mother nature. 3) Progression happens much faster through society. Global solidarity is necessary for the preservation of a species. If we were to dissolve governments Anarchy would dissolve many trade relations thus leading to economic woes, and as history as unveiled, during times of economic troubles war is almost certain to show up. 4) Because regulations would no longer be passed, many companies would offer poor services and others would be put out of business. These would eventually halt communication permanently leading to war through miscommunication and lack of diplomacy.
Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma.

ON WITH THE GOOD STUFF. "Well if you read the definitions, then God is OMNISCIENCT. He knows EVERYTHING." Prove it. This is basically what's causing the problems. I would have challenged you the first time, but there was not enough room:) "Apparently, my opponent has no clue about this." I'm shocked. Apparently, debate.org is not the site for me. To needbang.com we go! "Well if GOD, an OMNIPOTENT AND OMNIBENEVOLENT BEING, makes something right, then I argue it IS right." That's ALOT OF CAPITAL LETTERS MISSY. "YOU have said nothing in your first Round, therefore you CONCEDE ALL DEFINTIIONS STATED." MORE capital letters?! REALLY? REALLY? "Without further doubt, vote PRO if you have some sense in your body." Oh I sure have something else for you in my BOD-AY. thanks for reading. and vote for me if you want to. no pressure PUNK....