BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The school system of education is redundant

Quote -In your view, what would be an appropriate manner in adopting technology in the classroom? Would it be endless video watching to gain knowledge on a topic, along with on line tutorials programs with click answering of multiple choice questions? This type of educational process on its own would not result in fully understanding any topic. If technology was used as the only means to transmit knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills would not be developed. How would the student learning process be assessed in order to determine if a student is actually learning? Reply - It would not be necessary to go to school in my model. The student could learn from a home computer. They would still have to log into the computer by law at certain times to fulfil the education requirements via computer time. The courses would be divided in 10 minute units on each topic. Each topic would have revision questions to test if the student understands the subject properly before progressing. The revision tests would occur daily and not on a term basis as is currently practised. A score of their progress would be accumulated. The time and accuracy of their answers would be assessed daily by the computer program. A graph of their progress would show where they were in relation to other students. The current methods of teaching are too slow, costly and ineffective. My son is struggling to learn using the current system. He keeps missing information and has to constantly have private tuition to keep up with the class. This is all unnecessary. Quote - Videos have a time limit. In the time given only superficial information can be provided. They are most often used to provide an overview of a topic, or to provide information on a specific aspect of a subject. They do not provide in depth examination, or are all encompassing in information on a particular subject being taught. Reply - Videos can be designed to have as much detail as you want. Some teachers are lazy and don't teach in an appropriate manner. The video method is more reliable and students don't have any excuses for not knowing information. Teachers can show favouritism to certain students and give them better marks. The computer system is completely neutral and doesn't favour any students over others. The classroom situation has many distractions which interrupt concentration. The computer system would save billions of dollars in education costs and would be far more productive. Some private tuition could be still available in subjects that require verbal responses. Sport and social activities would be still available using this system. Art, craft, woodwork, metalwork, technical drawing would be some exceptions that still require teachers. Overall, 90% of teaching could be done via computer.
The school system of education is redundant

--"The school system of education is redundant and out of date. " -- I will reword your title statement for clarity then you can agree or disagree if the new statement expresses your intent. If so, we can start from this point. * The educational process in schools today has become a system of redundancies and is out of date. -- Since the invention of the video recorder and computer, education has not adopted these new technologies in an appropriate manner. "" Technology in the classroom is used as a tool to supplement the curriculum. It is not meant to replace actual teaching methods. In your view, what would be an appropriate manner in adopting technology in the classroom? Would it be endless video watching to gain knowledge on a topic, along with on line tutorials programs with click answering of multiple choice questions? This type of educational process on its own would not result in fully understanding any topic. If technology was used as the only means to transmit knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills would not be developed. How would the student learning process be assessed in order to determine if a student is actually learning? --"Teachers are not really necessary anymore. "" I disagree on this point. Teaching is far more complex than showing videos and using computers. Teachers have to go through an extensive education process to become licensed to teach. Then, throughout their careers have to continue their education to obtain new knowledge on methods of teaching. Every student in a class has a different learning style and has different levels of understanding on any given topic. A teacher has to approach teaching in a manner that all students benefit regardless of the differences of each student. This is where teaching methodology comes into play. --"Once you record a subject on a video machine, it shouldn't be necessary for that subject matter to be repeated by millions of teachers all around the world on a daily basis. "" Videos have a time limit. In the time given only superficial information can be provided. They are most often used to provide an overview of a topic, or to provide information on a specific aspect of a subject. They do not provide in depth examination, or are all encompassing in information on a particular subject being taught.
Universal health care should be implemented in the United States

http://www.city-journal.org... . http://www.latimes.com... . http://www.nationalcenter.org... . http://www.svsu.edu... (just to illustrate opinions) . http://www.angelfire.com... . http://www.balancedpolitics.org... My opponent's point about Canadian Healthcare was not unknown to me. As I have said before, you would not be kept waiting in an emergency situation, but you will wait longer for everything else than you would in America. In the system right now, if you decided to fork out a little extra cash, you can get the yellow fever vaccine whenever you want. If my opponent suggests that one has to wait, then my point is made. My opponent also argues that the Canadian system is based on need rather than ability to pay, and thus, is more ethical. I find this absurd because the American system operates more quickly and ranks based on clinical need just like the Canadian system. The only difference is the price. Health care is a resource, one that needs to be shared. But it does not necessarily mean that everyone should get an equal share. When we pay for health care, it is a fair exchange regardless. My opponent suggests that since the majority of people prefer Universal Health care, my argument is defeated. This is argumentum ad populum fallacy. I argue that the majority of people are ignorant, and that what they know to be true about universal health care is not enough. I doubt those who support it understand all the negative impacts that come with it. My opponent argues that those who are less useful in society are that way simply because of bad luck, (I will replace my opponent's term "intelligence" with biology and environment and call it "luck) and that because of that, it entitles them to special treatment. I find this extremely unamerican and unfair to those who work hard. My opponent also commits false dichotomy in that he forgets that in his system, unlucky people who work hard to get rich will have to pay for unlucky people who decide to do nothing. The only fair way is for people to get exactly what they deserve. Being unlucky doesn't make you more deserving. Children, the disabled, and the elderly should be given some aid though. I find no reason why a cab driver should be entitled to more than he deserves. Something else I feel I must point out: Under a capitalistic system, more people will put money into the healthcare system, which as I have said before, is a resource and not a right. Healthcare can be saturated, it is a service and a commodity. People pay money to be educated, people put in hours and labor to supply the service. With less money to go around in the healthcare system, the poor reap all the benefits while the middle class is left footing the bill and keeping the system afloat (assuming that universal health care substitutes medicare and medicaid). The sheer number of poor people weighing down on the system makes the costs for the middle class not worth the taxes. The poor are the ones who need medical care the most anyway. To put it simply, Universal health care is unfair, despite what the name may suggest.
Universal health care should be implemented in the United States

Before I start debating, I must list my sources from the previous round as well as this round. My sources include: . http://wikipedia.org... . http://www.pnhp.org... I want to start by addressing your argument that the wait times in places such as Canada are much longer than those in the US. I do not deny that this is true. However, in the wait times in the Canadian system are based on the clinical need. For example, if someone needed a liver transplant opposed to another person needing a vaccine to yellow fever, then the person with need of a liver transplant will wiat much less than the person needing the yellow fever vaccine. However, in the US, wait times are based on the ability of the patient to pay. From this, we can conclude that the basis of the wait times in the Canadian system are more ethical than the US's system due to the fact that it is based on the clinical need rather than the ability to pay. As for your second argument, many studies have shown that a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care As for your proposal, I disagree with the fact that the access to care is determined by your ability to pay. The ability to pay depends on the job that you acquire. The job that you acquire depends on your intelligence and your effort. Lets say you have to people. On is extremely intelligent, while the other one is not so much. The extremely intelligent works very hard, and ends up being a lawyer. The other one works just as hard, but ends up being a taxi driver. The taxi driver cannot affort to may more than the little monthly payments. Even though he worked just as hard, the taxi driver still has to pay normal co-pays.
Universal health care should be implemented in the United States

The issue that my opponent has brought up is Universal Health Care being implemented in the United States. Based on his argument, I am assuming that he suggests a form of Health Care available to everyone, for free, at any time. I agree with my opponent on the point that Health Care needs to change, but not necessarily in the manner that he suggests. It is a well known fact that although the American system of Managed Care is financially distressing in several aspects, there are significant flaws with the Canadian system. In general, the wait time for many procedures such as MRIs, are slower than care you would receive in the U. S. The red tape and bureaucracy still exist, just with a smaller price tag and less paperwork. Scheduled surgeries will run you much less, but they will keep you waiting a month in Canada when you need wait at most a week in the U. S. Of course, this does not count for emergency situations, but for many surgeries that are not life threatening, but can involve great deals of discomfort and pain, that involve taking leave from work. And when you're in pain, it makes the difference in price a little less worth it. Another qualm I have with this system is that I am a capitalist, and I view Health Care to be a service, not a right. My opponent admits that there will probably be a tax increase, and since 33% of my paycheck already goes to give free healthcare to the poor, the disabled, and the old, I wonder what more will be taken from me to provide health care for people I don't feel like giving my hard earned money to. I propose the following: A government-centered management of Health care just like the Canadian system, with a reimbursement system. You choose your monthly rate and get to change it once a year. That rate indicates your non-emergency priority in terms of care, as well as your amount of reimbursement when health care is actually used. The higher your rate, the more you are compensated when you use health care. Those who pay little to nothing should have to pay normal co-pays when they use health care. Those who pay moderate to high monthly payments should have little to no copay and better access to care. This will help keep taxes down, eliminate wait times, and reduce the general cost of health care for all Americans, while still respecting the right of an American to not have to pay fees they do not want to pay.
The Ressurection was logically impossible.

Again, my opponent has more speculation than fact, as demonstrated by the fact that many of his statements that he automatically assumes to be true have no proper basis in logic. "In order for there to be any entirety of time at all it would require you to look upon the world objectively from some outer dimension. E.g. The entirety of 2 dimensional space can only be conceptualised from 3 dimensions." This is unproven, and probably false because I can conceptualize the entirety of a three-deminsional space while in three dimensions. "Furthermore eternity is defined as outside of time itself. an entirety (as you put it) of infinite is impossible." eternity - eternal existence http://dictionary.reference.com... eternal - lasting forever http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent's definition doesn't match, and is also unsourced. Even if he could source his definition, he would have to logically prove that God is eternal in his sense rather than any other sense. My opponent's second paragraph is ultimately about how humans are incapable of producing things in fewer than three dimensions. This may be physically true, but we are capable of working with fewer dimensions in computation and mathematics, and can program objects with fewer dimensions. Additionally, it is foolish to assume that a human limitation would apply to God, and to assume that a few human limitations constitute a set of "laws of spatial dimensions" that could apply to anyone besides humans, or that because physics cannot distinguish between spatial and temporal dimensions (which is another unsourced claim not grounded in logic), no scientific law many distinguish between the two, is completely and totally unscientific and illogical. My opponent finally requests that I not use the word "irrelevant," but by the outline of the debate, my opponent must disprove the Ressureciton using the laws of logic, so anything that does not use the laws of logic is de facto irrelevant. In conclusion, my opponent still hasn't fixed the problems that I identified in the last round. He has one more round to make a logical, not theoretical, argument, as the Contender cannot create new arguments in the last round. Good luck with your final chance, Seabiscuit.
The Ressurection was logically impossible.

The idea that God is subjected to our own linear time graph is what I'm saying is far to anthropomorphic for omnipresence. What you don't seem to understand is that the prejudiced sensation of time doesn't just exist as we subjectively ground it. In order for there to be any entirety of time at all it would require you to look upon the world objectively from some outer dimension. E.g. The entirety of 2 dimensional space can only be conceptualised from 3 dimensions. Furthermore eternity is defined as outside of time itself. an entirety (as you put it) of infinite is impossible. Secondly is my opponents argument on an external structure somehow pinpointing within the finite regions of an enervated system can be logically dismissed. In our 3 dimensional world we often slapstickly articulate the 2nd dimension or 1st with a crude drawing on a piece of paper. The square usually represents the 2nd and a point represents the first. However these shapes which we use to illustrate spatial dimensions are themselves still in three dimensions. The point used to illustrate the first still has a length and with as well as volume no matter how small we try to make it. The same goes for the square even though it can become a nebulously small volume it is still none the less there. Therefore it would be possible for us to attempt to someway interact or illustrate a lower dimension in our own 3 dimensional world. The laws of spatial dimensions could then be logically applied to time dimensions seeing as how physics makes no distinction between the two. Also something else I would like to address is the whimsical use of the word irrelevant. Stop using that word, when the context is clearly within the boundaries of causality.
The Ressurection was logically impossible.

My refutation this round will be simple. My opponent brings up numerous claims that are not supported by the laws of logic. His first easily refuted claim is that "eternity ... exists outside of our own single dimension of time." Eternity is not this, but instead the entirety of the dimension of time. Secondly, he claims that an eternal entity, such as God, would be unable to "pinpoint a nebulous location for Jesus to interact with." However, there is nothing logical to suggest that an omnipotent, omnipresent being cannot interact with specific points in space and time. Just because God exists for all time, doesn't mean he isn't able to do things at certian points in time. In conclusion, my opponent's proof is not based at all on the laws of logic, but instead his own speculation, making it irrelevant to this debate. Good luck in your next round, Seabiscuit.
The Ressurection was logically impossible.

The christian bible assumes God is eternal. Eternity in terms of humanity is for the most part inconceivable because of our own intolerant prerogative in favor of a linear omnipresent forward moving time. But Eternity on the other hand has no prejudices, in that it exist outside of our own single dimension of time. Therefore, if God exist on this metaphysical extrinsic peripheral it would be impossible for him to pinpoint a nebulous location (in space and time) for Jesus to interact with. Therefore, if Jesus never existed in this singular dimension of time, then it would be logically impossible for him to be resurrected. That is my argument sir.
The Ressurection was logically impossible.

I negate that the Ressurection was logically impossible, but first, some definitions:The Ressurection - the event in which Jesus of Nazareth was clinically dead, then three days later became aliveLogically impossible - contradicting any law of logic, or any scientific law or fact derived from the laws of logic, although I reserve the right to challenge whether or not a scientific law or fact is truly based in logicLaws of logic - http://atheism.about.com...Scientific law - http://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent will have the burden of proof, because it would be impossible to prove something to be logically possible, as I would have to explain why the event is compatible with every logical statement. The default is that an event is logically possible unless demonstrated otherwise.Good luck to whoever takes this debate.
is it a good thing or bad when stores decorate and start selling winter holiday items before TG

You did not define what TG is, and in my argument, I am assuming that means thanksgiving. It is a good thing when stores decorate and start selling winter holiday items before thanksgiving because it separates the class system in america and defines people as higher or lower rank. If they are in poverty, they shouldn't have Christmas. So it would not matter if everything is too expensive, because they are NOT going to be able to afford Christmas anyways. Joel 3:1 "For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink."
You Cannot Win the McDonalds game

My opponent's argument is that the McDonalds flash game he linked us to is unbeatable. However, I have played this flash game and I can assure the audience that the game is not impossible. This game is meant to go on forever and thus, the game never ends. However, this is not to say that you cannot win or you cannot beat it. The method of winning is to position your actions in such a way that it sets up a steady state where you gain more money than you lose. l I have gotten to a steady state where I continuously make profit and have lasted for over 100 years, then stopped playing because I *won*. Furthermore, there are many people who have gotten to that same state, where they have continuous profits coming in. . http://jayisgames.com... Thus, my opponent's assertion is incorrect. He has absolutely no justification for asserting that the McDonalds game is unwinnable or unbeatable.
War is all about Technology.

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Looking forward to it. I will make some initial arguments and save rebuttals for the next round. If success in war depends on technology, then we would expect to see a few trends. First, a war's outcome could be calculated mathematically by measuring each side's quality and quantity of technology. The winner would simply be the side with the most and best tech. Second, we would expect that soldiers in low-tech armies would instantly surrender when facing high tech armies. There would be no point in fighting if the side with the best technology always wins. However, history shows that both these trends are false. In reality we see low-tech armies fight and defeat high-tech superpowers all the time. Pro challenged me to give an example of when something other than weapons tech decided victory. Fortunately, there are many examples. Battle of Isandlwana: Native Zulu warriors with spears destroyed a British force armed with rifles and artillery. [1] The Arab Revolt (WWI): T.E. Lawrence and his low-tech Arab army defeated the comparatively high-tech Turks. The Korean War: Technologically inferior North Korean and Chinese armies fought a high-tech UN coalition to a stalemate. The Vietnam War: The Viet Cong and NVA had vastly inferior military tech compared to the US, yet they still won. The Soviet-Afghan War: Same thing - low tech mujahideen hiding in caves defeating the high-tech, nuclear capable Soviet Union Operation Enduring Freedom: Same thing - low tech insurgents stubbornly holding their own against a very high-tech U.S. military Operation Iraqi Freedom: Same as above The examples could go on and on... Technology is important, but it is not the most important thing in warfare. Logistics, morale, strategy, discipline, and leadership are essential and often more decisive. For example, if a nation has a large, technologically superior air force but no logistics system to support it, then it's useless. Similarly, you could have a high-tech infantry force, but if you have bad leaders, low morale, and no discipline, then the technology doesn't count for much. Looking forward to rebuttals. [1] http://www.britishbattles.com...