BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A beggar is smarter than a person with PHD

The problem is if it is depended on what you know exists then he who knows the least will always know more. To know everything that exists is impossible do to the limit amount of information your brain can understand, retain, and remember. If knowledge is just the percentage of what you know exists then the more you know the dumber you become and therefore ruins the meaning and understanding of what knowledge is. That would mean the smartest person in the world would be a baby do to its lack of knowledge of the existent. To answer your question, no I do not believe that if someone doesn't know something exists then that in and of itself makes them stupid, just not fully educated on the subject. I believe the man who is educated in institutions, or schools has a broader span of knowledge and a greater depth do to his time spent studying or being taught. This is why I believe an educated man has more knowledge then the beggar (uneducated person).
A beggar is smarter than a person with PHD

Hey, welcome to debate.org. Firstly I understand your confusion, so let me explain what I meant by knowledge. I am not talking about education, as in the knowledge that one gets from an institution, but about the knowledge as whole. In my opinion knowledge consist from two parts: education that you receive from an institution and life experience. And here is my argument as to why a beggar (uneducated person) will always be smarter than a highly educated person. An uneducated man who hasn’t received any education from an institution has received all his knowledge from life experience. On the other hand a highly educated person, who spent many years in learning institutions i.e. schools. Now I know what you’ll say. I just totally destroyed my argument. But think about it from another perspective. A person who hasn’t received any education from an institution, doesn’t know about biology, history, chemistry, math, etc. In his point of view, all that exists is his life, how he will get money, where will he get food, etc. That’s his 100%. A highly educated person on the other hand knows about atoms, molecules, math… He knows that all of those things exist so his 100% (of all the knowledge he could get), is way bigger than that of the uneducated man. So if you put it like that the uneducated man knows around let’s say 60% of all the knowledge he knows exists and the highly educated man knows only let’s say 5% of all the knowledge he knows exists. So let me ask you… If you don’t know something exists does that make you stupid, because in that case there are no smart people on Earth. And that is why an uneducated man will always be smarter than a highly educated person.
A beggar is smarter than a person with PHD

First, it is important to understand what an education and knowledge is. Are you saying that they have more knowledge in the sense that they know more about applicable things or just genuinely smarter. Also that you said "will always be smarter" seems false because I think it would depend on the topic and person. I believe because of the educated man's education he is smarter in a general sense. I am sorry for I am new to this so thanks for letting me participate.
The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old.

I accept. Since Round 1 is for definitions, I just want to define the "preponderance of the evidence standard." A preponderance means "more likely than not" and greater than 50% probability. However, normal rules of evidence apply, and the triers of fact may weigh the credibility of the evidence before considering it. Thus, when judging a debate by a preponderance, the judges should picture a giant scale. Each argument in support of the resolution = one object. If the argument is more credible, you should picture the object as larger. If the argument is less credible, you should picture the object as smaller. If the argument is completely uncredible, you should refuse to place the object on the scale. After determining the size of the objects [credibility], the judge should place all of the objects on the correct side of the scale [all the Pro arguments for YEC on one side and all the Con arguments against YEC on the other]. If Con has *more* arguments or *better, weightier* arguments, Con wins.
The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old.

In this debate, Pro will argue the evidence that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, and Con will argue the evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. The debate is to be determined by the preponderance of evidence. Years are taken as units of time in the conventional sense as presently measured, not in an allegorical or poetic sense.The claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is part of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). In this debate only the age of the earth is in contention, not other aspects of YEC.The first round is for acceptance and definitions only; the Pro case will be given in R2. All arguments must be presented directly in the debate. Sources must be cited in the debate, and not given in Comments or elsewhere. All DDO site rules apply. Con may not introduce new evidence or arguments in the last round, because Pro has no space in the debate to reply.I welcome my opponent to the debate.
Should gum be allowed in school

Please explain Why would cleaning dirt off your pants, lead to putting your hands under the desk. The desk bottom is not so close to pants, so the point you made was a useless point. Your not even supposed to be texting in class anyway, so the first points you made were extremely foolish. IT is also foolish to use my quotes in you debate just to find a point to make. .. FOOLISHI'm only giving ideas as to how people would move their hands to the bottom of their desks. This debate has nothing to do about arguing if its right to text during class or not, its only an idea. Also, I am only quoting what you say to rebut it. I did not state that you can have a heart attack during class, I stated that, it REDUSES the risk, that is two completely different things. Also I did not say that all gum is healthy , I said MOST gum. I chew all types of gum, and I have never came across one that rots your teeth, maybe it rots your teeth if you chew large amounts 24/7, But this is about school only. Even though they are two different things, they still wont have one during school. Like I reminded you a few times, this is whether gum should be allowed it SCHOOL. I never said that anyone applies them with gum, it is allowed. Just like it is allowed to wear red shirts, that doesn't mean we supply it. The students apply their own gum, the school just allows them to eat it, they don't supply. If the student is allergic or has braces then why does she have the gum in the first place. Point conceded I never said that this person with braces or an allergy has gum. I said that a person without these conditions that doesn't know the person they are giving gum to has braces or allergies, then they could be in serious harm. ConclusionIn conclusion, Gum should not be allowed in school for many of the reasons such as messiness, dangers, and things like constant use and costs.
Should gum be allowed in school

Please explain Why would cleaning dirt off your pants, lead to putting your hands under the desk. The desk bottom is not so close to pants, so the point you made was a useless point. Your not even supposed to be texting in class anyway, so the first points you made were extremely foolish. IT is also foolish to use my quotes in you debate just to find a point to make... FOOLISH I did not state that you can have a heart attack during class, I stated that, it REDUSES the risk, that is two completely different things. Also I did not say that all gum is healthy , I said MOST gum. I chew all types of gum, and I have never came across one that rots your teeth, maybe it rots your teeth if you chew large amounts 24/7, But this is about school only. COUNTER ARGUEMENTS "Someone who doesn't know these conditions but constantly supplies the children with gum could seriously hurt them." I never said that anyone applies them with gum, it is allowed. Just like it is allowed to wear red shirts, that doesn't mean we supply it. The students apply their own gum, the school just allows them to eat it, they don't supply. If the student is allergic or has braces then why does she have the gum in the first place. Point conceded \
Should gum be allowed in school

The example I have stated is only an EXAMPLE I did not only talk about the sports only. And the people who strecth out there gum and stick it under the desk is very immature and quite disgusting. IN addition Why is you hands even under the desk, so that is irrelevent. Also the school costodians, are paid plent money, I heard some costodians at school get paid more than some teachers. So i believe they can get clean the gum.People still do it in school thus, it is something that happens in school. People could possibly be cleaning dirt off of their pants or texting under the desk. That could be why they put their hands under the desk. Only SOME custodians and it is very rare. When you fist walk into the class room the first thing you see is not the gum under the table, and not every one will be that immature to even put it under the table. Gum is very healthy, It protects you teeth and make them stronger, also research show that chewing gum can decrease your risk of a heart attack, and relive stomach aches. What messed up school do you go to, The kids, chew gum and put it under the dest, they chew a whole box of gum in a day. IT just does not make sense, Only if you are mentally ill, but im not trying to diss, but.... Some boxess of gum have more than 26 peices so chewing that a day of 7 hours is not normal, or the gum must be very cheap gum. So your resources are not very reliable.People dont have heart attacks in school nor stomach aches that are severe. It is again, very rare. Not all gum is healthy. Most gum just rot your teeth. "What messed up school do you go to, The kids, chew gum and put it under the dest, they chew a whole box of gum in a day." You clearly are not understanding that these are scenarios and things that happen in everyday life. While you say I have horrible resources, you dont even have any. All you say is that "Study shows" I could say that too. I could even say "Osama wants" and people would believe me. They could not be smart people, but they are people. Thus, you do not have very reliable resources. ArgumentGum is bad for many types of people. What if a child has some kind of disease that prevents them from chewing gum because there is a certain ingrediant in the gum that causes an alergy? What if the child has braces? I remember from my experiance, that you are not allowed to chew gum while you have braces. Someone who doesnt know these conditions but constantly supplies the children with gum could seriously hurt them.
Should gum be allowed in school

The example I have stated is only an EXAMPLE I did not only talk about the sports only. And the people who strecth out there gum and stick it under the desk is very immature and quite disgusting. IN addition Why is you hands even under the desk, so that is irrelevent. Also the school costodians, are paid plent money, I heard some costodians at school get paid more than some teachers. So i believe they can get clean the gum. When you fist walk into the class room the first thing you see is not the gum under the table, and not every one will be that immature to even put it under the table. Gum is very healthy, It protects you teeth and make them stronger, also research show that chewing gum can decrease your risk of a heart attack, and relive stomach aches. What messed up school do you go to, The kids, chew gum and put it under the dest, they chew a whole box of gum in a day. IT just does not make sense, Only if you are mentally ill, but im not trying to diss, but.... Some boxess of gum have more than 26 peices so chewing that a day of 7 hours is not normal, or the gum must be very cheap gum. So your resources are not very reliable.
Should gum be allowed in school

Rebuttals"Gum should be allowed in school, studies have shown that gum help your brain keep focused and alert."It does not all the time. People can play with their gum. Stretch it out. Yes they will be focused but not alert and the only thing they will be focused on is how far their gum can be stretched.For example, if you have noticed while waching sports, most of the players chew gum, because as i said it keeps then alert. This can improve your work and your grade.This is irrelevant because we are talking about school. Not sports on a television. ArgumentsMessyGum can be messy. In fact, its one of the most disgusting things you can see in school. If you put it under your desk, as many people have done, it will not only ruin the desk but will make the school have to buy a new one, which I'm sure when the money stacks and people continue to place gum under desks, It will be A LOT of moneyCostThe cost of gum is not very expensive. But, The amounts children are chewing is quite extraordinary. People can chew through a whole box of gum in just one school day. Thus, They would want to go to the store and buy another pack which costs around one dollar.
Chrysippus is not a noob.

Well, I can put it to you this way. "Noob" was provided, I clicked the link and the link provided "newbie", say I did not know what either of these things meant. In the event that I did not, I would click on "newbie" to see the entire definition as I'm sure some of the readers of this debate will as well. Not because they don't know what "newbie" is but because they are checking to make sure the link works etc. , they will see that indeed the formal definition of "Noob" is "newbie" and the definition of newbie is inexperienced at using computers of the internet [[paraphrased]]. My opponent never explicitly stated that Chrysippus was a "Noob" at using DDO or a "Noob" at debating - simply stating that "Chrysippus is not a noob". Due to the fact that Chrysippus can obviously use the internet and his computer, Chrysippus is not a "Noob". Had my opponent only wanted this debate to be about Chrysippus' "Noob" - like traits on DDO he should have specified in the resolution.
Chrysippus is not a noob.

However, the only word that I used to define "noob" was "newbie." I simply gave the source to show where I got "newbie" from. Clearly, my opponent is arguing semantics. I specifically gave the word "newbie" as the definition because that is the only one I wanted to use in the debate. My source just shows where I got the definition from. If I wanted to use more defining terms, I would have listed them, but since I did not, my opponent's arguments do not hold water. I did define "noob" as a "newbie." That is the only thing I gave to define. My opponent is arguing semantics and has not stuck to the original definition in the debate. In round I, my opponent extended the definition to simply being an inexperienced user of computers. However, the fact that we are on a debating website and the word "noob" is used frequently, it is only logical that "noob" would apply to being a "newbie" at debating on this site. My opponent argued fallacious semantics and did not stay on topic.
Chrysippus is not a noob.

The definition of Noob links to newbie for clarification. I did not change the definition, I merely cited what your link cited. I am not the one shifting BoP, that would be you. These definitions are one in the same, my opponent is trying to argue that the definition of Noob and newbie are dissimilar which is completely fallacious. Therefore, as long as Chrysippus can use a computer, which he can, he is not a Noob. Resolution is affirmed, Noob and newbie are the same.
Chrysippus is not a noob.

BoP: My opponent is wrong. I must only prove that he is a noob by the definition that I presented, which is that a noob is a newbie. I have already established the definition of "noob" as a newbie. That is the only definition I provided, because that is the only definition for the debate. As Instigator, I set up the debate and used my provided definition. My definition was presented before my opponent's, which means my opponent's definition holds no water. Once again, my opponent has changed the definition, which she cannot because I already established one. It is unfair to change a prior definition. The remainder of my opponent's argument is irrelevant because she has changed the definition and had no right to do so. She has improperly argued semantics, for I already established the definition of "noob. " My opponent changed the definition, and argued flawed semantics. Resolution negated. Thank you.
Chrysippus is not a noob.

Resolved: Chrysippus is not a noob. BoP: Seeing as my opponent negated a negative topic it is essentially the same as affirming. SAC8 must prove that Chrysippus is a noob by all definitions. I, must prove that Chrysippus is indeed, not a noob. I will accept SAC8's definition. Definition: http://dictionary.reference.com... Noob links to newbie. Anyways, "a newcomer or novice, esp. an inexperienced user of the Internet or of computers in general." Based on definition, Chrysippus would essentially have to be technologically retarded. He just does not comprehend the way DDO works as of yet. Therefore, as long as Chrysippus knows how to use the computer and the internet, he is not a noob. Seeing as he knows how to use both, he is not a noob. Therefore, Chrysippus is not a noob - resolution affirmed.
Chrysippus is not a noob.

I negate the resolution, "Chryisppus is not a noob. " ===================== Definitions: Chrysippus- . http://www.debate.org... noob- newbie. . http://dictionary.reference.com... =================== Chrysippus is a noob. He has joined this site several hours ago, and has created this debate: . http://www.debate.org... A noob would start out his DDO career by instigating a debate about probably losing his first debate on DDO. Conclusion: Chrysippus is a noob. He has joined only several hours ago, has created a debate regarding the possibility of losing his first debate on DDO, and even stated that he is new to this sort of thing. Resolution negated.
Men should be permitted to abandon their unborn child

//"not allowing the father to abandon doesn't guarantee the child will still be raised by both parents as some men simply give a monthly check to their estranged offspring and nothing else. "// Truee this does not guarrantee the child a smooth life, but it makes the father take responsibility for his offspring. A monthly check and a little monetary support is better than growing up without a father being raised by a single parent. 1) Women forfeiting their right to abandonment is correct, but this discussion is about abstaining responsibility. That can be done through adoption almost immediately after birth. When a woman has an abortion she is abstaining responsibility for the child, however that child is no longer alive and so at least the child will not live with a single parent because their father is a deadbeat. 2) I am confused as to why the father forfeits his right to abandonment at the moment of conception. The fetus is not recognized to be a living citizen and is not protected by any rights. What is he abandoning exactly? It is abandonement in that if left unchecked, his sperm will grow into an embryo and then a fetus and then finally a human baby. Conception is where the father absolves biological responsibility for the child and as such forfeits his right to abandonement.
Men should be permitted to abandon their unborn child

The first half of my opponents round 2 argument merely restates what has been already described in detail during this debate and brings nothing new to the table. I know many people with one parent and I do not see that as the basis for a "life of suffering". Besides, not allowing the father to abandon doesn't guarantee the child will still be raised by both parents as some men simply give a monthly check to their estranged offspring and nothing else. "The woman forfeits her right to abandonement at the moment of birth, as the father forfeits his right to abandonement at the moment of conception." ---I'd like to address this statement in a number of ways: 1) Women forfeiting their right to abandonment is correct, but this discussion is about abstaining responsibility. That can be done through adoption almost immediately after birth. 2) I am confused as to why the father forfeits his right to abandonment at the moment of conception. The fetus is not recognized to be a living citizen and is not protected by any rights. What is he abandoning exactly? By allowing the father to legally sever his ties with the fetus before its birth he effectively has lifted the responsibility of child support from himself. Women can abort, because it is their body, but men should have a choice in the matter as well if their "partner" is uncooperative. It's his time, life and money on the line for something he never wished for, and he has every right to do what he wants with his life.
Men should be permitted to abandon their unborn child

//"If she wants to abort the child, that's fine, it is her body. But if she chooses to keep the child, against the father's wishes, then she should do so alone."// The reason a woman is allowed the right to abort her child is because A)The child is part of the woman's body before it is born and the woman has the right to have whatever procedures she wants on her body. B)The fetus' existence is ended during the abortion and thus the fetus cannot suffer after the abortion, like one can be hurt by growing up with the support of only one parent. The woman forfeits her right to abandonement at the moment of birth, as the father forfeits his right to abandonement at the moment of conception.
Men should be permitted to abandon their unborn child

"A father's biological job is over at the end of the sexual act. From this point on, the baby is biologically the mother's responsibility and as so has more of a say in the matter than the father." ---This is absolutely correct. The mother does make the decision, but no where in biology does it say a man has to stick around. I suggest that the mother make her choice independent of any support from a man. If she wants to abort the child, that's fine, it is her body. But if she chooses to keep the child, against the father's wishes, then she should do so alone. "The father is in the same position as a mother who has gotten pregnant and given up the right of an abortion, has the baby, and then decided she does not want to care for the baby anymore. The father is in the same position as this woman in that neither of them have the right to an abortion, medical or legal." ---Well: 1) The father biologically can't have an abortion, so to say he gives up the right to one is misleading. 2) Women who have "given up the right of an abortion, has the baby, and then decided she does not want to care for the baby anymore" can do so legally through adoption. 3) Women do have a right to an abortion so I'm not sure how this fits in. To be more clear: This should be assumed under current US law, which permits women to have abortions. Its her body, her choice. By that same logic, the money payed for child support is the mans, hence: Its his money, his choice. I am not saying men should force abortions on women, absolutely not. What I am trying to say is that men should not be held against their will to care for a child they do not want in a soceity where women have the last word on pregnancy. As far as round one is concerned, Con did not provide any significant evidence against my argument and merely provided a quick lesson in biology.