BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New Education Systems

As I went over my plan, I realized that my plan did not lack creativity. It lacked what most people imagine as creativity: art, music, poetry, creative writing, and it included creativity by way of critical thinking and planning. I just wanted to say that. You stated that my plan was too "academic". For the most part, I can agree. In my plan, I wanted to ensure that academics is prioritized over sports and other activities. For the most part, sports and other activities rarely positively affect academic performance. Furthermore, in the long term, academics will determine success, not one's ability to throw a ball. This is why I support the academic achievement for sports. I, like you, offered many different electives and pathways that can ensure that the fish swim and the monkeys climb. Really, I want to ensure that ALL people have the knowledge to get through life effectively and have the ability to think for themselves, but they have specific knowledge that they can utilize to become successful in life. Once they pass the classes that ensure this, they can graduate high school. No graduate HAS to be a mathematician and a historian, they just have to know how to do math and how to interpret history. The point you made that I agree with the most is your idea that the current school system is teaching students to conform to society and conformity itself. Your plan involves specific focuses on individuality and mine involves focus on the formation of opinions. In my opinion, both plans effectively correct this problem. I am typing this really late and I may be hard to understand so I apologize now. Thanks for the constructive criticism. I'm glad this turned into a discussion as opposed to a cold debate.
New Education Systems

Our ideas are incredibly similar. We will continue the debate with what is different(however slight those may be). Looks like these last two rounds will be short though. Your concept of having different age groups focus on different traits is interesting. However, my plan emphasizes a focus on critical thinking and independent thinking through all age groups. Your plan involves breaking that down into three different parts. While both ideas have merits(mine being that the skill is overall improved throughout the steps of education, yours being that it breaks it down into the parts of critical and independent thinking and that develops) I believe that mine would be more effecient in that all skills are evenly and thouroughly developed. Your plan's flaw is that you did not consider that positive traits will be lost over several years. For example, the creativity and love of learning you teach in step one will gradually disappear throughout the rest of the child's education. This is the only flaw I see with this concept. Futhermore, your plan involves covering poetry and creative writing. These skills do have merits but seem to contradict your view on career preparation. Most careers do not involve poetry or creative writing unless the student is an author(which is a very small percentage of the population). My plan involves persuasive and expository writing. Though this writing is not overly prominent, it is still more prominent and it also enhances a skill: persuasion and explanation(though these are not always written, the strategies learned for these two can transfer verbally unlike story telling). Your view on higher level students involves making pretty much all classes optional. Some skills are taught in the classes you wish to make optional that should be known by all adults(such as government, writing, and math). Overall, your plan emphasizes more creativity than mine does. My plan involves more specialization and real life work than your does. I admit my plan may not foster enough creativity, but I believe that it is ideal for setting people up to succeed in their adult lives.
Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time.

I would like to repost my link. (1) http://ganymede.nmsu.edu... Also, microevolution, natural selection, and mutation are all parts of evolution, and the fact that they exist before our very eyes provides proof that evolution is not a straight up fairy tale even if it has flaws. I have nothing more to rebuttal here. Vote con because I used sources, proper grammar, and provided scientific and logical evidence. Thanks for the debate!
Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time.

I would like to point out some things to you. First off, this is a debate website, and I am allowed to use science and logic in my argument. Second off, we are arguing for the truth of this statement:"Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time." I am arguing that the statement is false. It's hard to interpret the meaning of that statement because it has improper grammar, but besides that, it is indeed false. Regardless of whether you believe in the concept of billions of years, you cannot deny that parts of the theory are indeed true. Because of that, evolution isn't the biggest contemporary fairy tale of all time. You failed to tell me how my sparrow theory was untrue, and therefore, I will not put it away. Parts of evolution are observable before our very eyes, and it is insane to deny that natural selection and microevolution were not at work in the sparrow situation. How do you explain the fact that certain sparrows show up in certain parts of the United States in the exact spots that are best for each type of sparrow? Also, you used the idea that thoughts of Newton were later proven wrong. Are you saying that any scientific idea created in the past is wrong? That is insane! What about the theory of gravity? Does that exist? It's as observable before our eyes in the same way as parts of evolution. The existence of mutation is another evidence that parts of evolution are indeed true. Just by random chance and the imperfection in genetics, you can get some weird things. Even Fruit Flies can have mutations (1). That is an example of evolution, and you can see it with your very eyes! How do you deny that? (1) http://ganymede.nmsu.edu...;
Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time.

Nice try, but let's keep it simple. You know exactly where I'm coming from. If your going to waist my time by using your version of what the definition of "is" is, then I'll be on my way. I want a debate, not word games. I only play one game, and that's chess. So put away your birds and let's get to it. Instead of muddying the waters with scientific jargon, pseudo-science and bubbly bio-chemical banter. Lets start at the beginning while I will promise not mention Occam's razor. My belief in a Creator and Creation and my rejection of all secular explanations stems from one simple question that has been the unwavering monkey wrench in the growing list of theories of the evolutionists, secular scientists and Ancient Alien Theorists (LOL) among others. Where and how all the matter that is in the universe got there? This question has baffled the so called "Sons of monkey wannabes" for years. The secular materialists introduced "The Big Bang Theory". But there's a problem, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then what blew up? If there WAS something there before the Big Bang, then where back at the original question. There is only one answer, "the matter was placed there". Now about Evolution, if it did happen, there would be a fossil record so vast we would be tripping all over the stuff. It does not exist. There is more evidence of Creation then Evolution. The Darwinist paradigm, is about to face the same revolution that Newtonian physics faced 100 years ago. Just as physicists discovered that the atom was not a fatty mass particle, as Newton believed but a baffling quantum arena accessible only through mathematics. So too are biologists coming to understand that the cell is not a simple lump of protoplasm, as Darwin believed. It's a complex information-processing machine comprising tens of thousands of proteins arranged in fabulously intricate algorithms of communication and synthesis. Darwinism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science. Right back at ya my friend. Thank You
Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time.

The definition of evolution as you are using it is this:"Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." (1)This does happen! Unless you can disprove the existence mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift, you cannnot win this debate. Even if you don't believe in the concept of billions of years (I don't either), it is undeniable that microevolution occurs because it happens before our very eyes. Sparrows in the United States have different beak sizes in different parts of the country. Do you think this is because sparrows just popped out right there for no reason? It's because of microevolution that the sparrows who have beaks that fit their surroundings reproduce more. They are more likely to survive all the way until they are old enough to mate, and they will reproduce with sparrows that have similar beak sizes (2). This is common sense, and it is part of evolution. To compare this natural and observable phenomenon to a fairy-tale is very ignornant. Fairy-tales are not usually believed on a wide-scale. There are many people who think evolution is true. Most sane people believe at least certain parts of the theory are true. Therefore, how can it be a fairy-tale? Fairy-tales aren't meant to sound true, and a lot of evolution sounds true.Thank you for the debate! I know it will be fun! (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
On the question of "restorative therapy," there is no place for the President to be involved

Of course the President may use his "bully pulpit" to speak about his views on reparative therapy. It is, of course, ironic that he would use the "bully" pulpit in a matter where bullying people is so often the cause of pain, sadness, self-harm and even suicide. As for what he is constitutionally permitted and prohibited, he is, first and foremost, a constitutional officer of the USA and his actions are just as chargeable to the USA as the classroom prayers of a teacher are chargeable to the school district that employs them. He cannot, and should not, take any action inconsistent with the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association. Those the Constitution prohibits. He is free, I suppose, in his personal capacity to seek to oppress others. He simply behaves unseemly when he does. As for whether he is constitutionally able to ban therapy, the subject was included in my opening argument.
On the question of "restorative therapy," there is no place for the President to be involved

Your original statement "restorative therapy is no place for the president to be involved". I do not have to defend whether it is constitutionally allowed for the president to ban any form of therapy, because that is not what he is doing. I am making the point that it is constitutionally allowed for an American citizen to voice his or her opinion, which is what he did. The discussion over this form of therapy is a place for all Americans to be involved. As president he must defend the constitution. He must defend "freedom of speech" which allows him to talk about whatever topic or cause he sees fit. If he chooses to open a dialogue about this topic and his statement causes the American people to discuss it among themselves then he has done nothing unconstitutional. In fact, he has done something expected of the President which is to listen to the voice of the people and offer his thoughts. A group of concerned citizens brought this topic to his attention and the President answered them. Whether or not he is constitutionally able to ban this therapy is not an issue.
On the question of "restorative therapy," there is no place for the President to be involved

Your response questions the wisdom of, and denies the efficacy of, reparative therapy. In other words, you dispute the validity of reparative therapy. This debate addresses more than political choices that Obama may make. As a constitutional officer, he is sworn to defend the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to believe foolish things, to teach foolish things, and to join with others in propagating foolish things. The essential doctrinal consideration of free expression regarding foolish opinions is that the right cure is not suppression but comparison. You have not defended Obama having a constitutional power to interfere with these (However misguided they may be) exercises of rights guaranteed protected from federal interference. I take it you concede the point.
On the question of "restorative therapy," there is no place for the President to be involved

President Obama chose to support this cause due to an online movement which was sparked by the suicide of a young transgender girl. The girl was placed in conversion therapy after beginning her transition from male to female. Her suicide note inspired many people to show their support for her and other LGBTQ youths who are either forced or coerced into conversion therapy. It is his right as an American to support any cause he chooses. The movement is mainly to support LGBTQ "youth". Conversion therapy is not considered to be credible amongst the mental health community. It was used within the psychiatric community during the mid 20th Century when Homosexuality was considered to be and classified as a mental disorder. Conversion therapy was proven to have no effect and Homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder and hasn't been for some time. Homosexuality, Transsexuality, bisexuality, etc...have no treatment or cure. It is widely considered that someone is born gay or transgender. Conversion therapy, especially when attempted on adolescents is often a cause of Depression, self loathing and has been known to lead to self mutilation, such as cutting, as well as suicide. Conversion therapy is a pseudo-science with no real factual evidence to back it up. Many older men and women who have experienced conversion therapy also deal with depression and anxiety and commit suicide. Some have families, but secretly lead a double life. Conversion therapy has never been proven to work and has no scientific or psychological merit. On the other hand, self acceptance of one's sexuality very often leads to less depressive states, more fulfilled lives and overall happier individuals.
On the question of "restorative therapy," there is no place for the President to be involved

1. The President has announced his support for restrictions on the use of so-called "restorative therapy" or "gay conversion therapy." 2. Restorative therapy treats same sex orientation as a treatable disorder (without regard to the wisdom or efficacy of same). 3. Therapy constitutes a relationship between a provider of social and/or psychological services and a recipient of the same. 4. Therapy depends on communications, spoken and often also written, between therapist and recipient. 5. The relationship is protected by the constitutional right to freedom of association. 6. The communications are protected by the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the press. 7. The president is barred by the First Amendment from interfering with the exercise of these rights.
Metaphysical Solipsism is Most Likely True

Let's do it n7. Pre-Debate Notes: Note that all arguments made from my side are intended to be read from first-person perspective. As they relate to *Your* mind, indeed it is *You* the voter that I intend to demonstrate solipsism is true for. Thus when I mention 'I' or 'my' etc. , it is for the purposes of ease of reading, rather than an acknowledgement of *my* (As in 'Envisage', the debater) mind's existence. Definitions: Metaohysical Solipsism: "Metaphysical solipsism is the "strongest" variety of solipsism.
Austerity is a poor way to help an economy.

First to rebut, I think there are a great many gaps and a lack of correlation in many of your arguments. Let's go through it, shall we? 1. You assert that balancing the budget would result in financial institutions having more savings. Rebuttal: A government indulging in Austerity in order to meet the goal of a balanced budget takes away both savings AND spending power from the poorer segments of the population. With less money in food stamps or subsidized housing, the impoverished citizen is forced to withdraw money from Financial institutions in order to make these ends meet. Either that or rely on yet more credit to cover the gaps. On top of that, these individuals would have less money to spend on goods and services, and the providers of those goods and services in turn have less to save. Thus, with less savings from both the upper and lower end of the economy, financial institutions would have less saved and less to invest in production. 2. Savings could be utilized for expensive purchases, such as cars and houses. Rebuttal: Again, how does balancing a budget result in people having more money to save? We're talking about funds that government uses to typically subsidize people's lives so they don't have to spend money. If, in the course of austerity, people suddenly have to live without public transportation, food or housing help, where does their extra money come from? 3. The NBER's statement on the benefits of Capital Accumulation are not partnered with Austerity. In fact a recent article by the same group very much argues the opposite of that: http://www.nber.org... "The Austerity Myth: Gain without Pain". 4. Your conclusion rings hollow in the face of both examples I have provided. Please address them. In the meantime, I extend all arguments. And my thanks for your response.
Austerity is a poor way to help an economy.

Thanks Pro for presenting your arguments. Background Recently the world was plunged into a deep economic recession, mostly the result of a large housing bubble. Government intervention in the real estate and financial markets (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Community Reinvestment Act) put houses and thus trillions of dollars of capital in the wrong hands -- into the hands of people who couldn't afford those houses. The economy is weak because of the vast malinvestment and overconsumption associated with the wide availability of credit. When people defaulted on their mortgages, trillions in real estate value vanished, and thus the economy crashed. Arguments We need to cut government expenditures, taxation, and general economic intervention, and instead opt for a more laissez faire, free market economy. It is true that cutting government expenditures will reduce spending and thus total consumption. However, government doesn't have any money that it doesn't first print or take. If we reduced government spending to 2008 levels,the budget would immediately be balanced. [1] [2] I chose these figures out of simplicity, so let us not worry about the details. [1] http://www.cbo.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://mises.org... Balancing the budget (austerity) would thus leave financial institutions with more savings and capital available for more valuable purchases. These savings could then be utilized for investment in production, and expensive purchases. By expensive purchases I generally mean that consumers could purchase more expensive consumers goods like houses and automobiles which are beyond the scope of a single paycheck. Also important, these savings could be borrowed by businesses for the purpose of expanding business facilities, investing in productivity, and for the purposes of running general business operations (to pay employees and purchase the goods necessary for production, etc). The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that "policies to foster physical capital accumulation will translate to a higher marginal products of labor, and thus improved real wages for the states' workers." [4] NBER Working Paper Series; "Solow and the States: Capital Accumulation, Productivity, and Economic Growth", PDF. Conclusion Government is currently taking money from the productive private sector, where it otherwise would be used in capital investment to produce real wealth. Gov't is using savings to destroy wealth by spending it on short term consumption and redistributing capital. Economic recovery will require more capital investment and a balanced budget. The private sector can utilize the savings (capital) for more investment in production, which will increase productivity and thus the real wealth and strengthen a nation's economy.
Austerity is a poor way to help an economy.

I would like to open, by drawing out attention to the country of Iceland. In 2008, Iceland's recession, --part of string of countries that ended up in hot water due to their reliance on horrendous banking policies-- was not only the worst Iceland had ever seen, but also the deepest in terms of debt versus anywhere else on the planet. Austerity had its advocates there. "Cut our social programs! End our welfare! reign in our universal health care coverage! " they cried. But the Icelandic people wisely chose to reject this 'race-to-the-bottom' style of thinking. Paradoxically, by going into MORE debt briefly in order to stimulate their economy and salvage their social safety net, Iceland has bounced back stronger than ever into a position of economic leadership in the region. . http://www.bloomberg.com... By contrast, let us look to Greece, who, unlike Iceland, has been dragged kicking and screaming through austerity measures by the IMF (who loaned money Austerity-Anchor free to Iceland) and is still in horrific depression as a result. The complete lack of consumer spending has not magically resulted in the generation of new savings, nor have the deep cuts in social spending somehow translated to a strong and balanced budget. Rather these measures have utterly demolished both the prospects and morale of the Greek people. . https://www.commondreams.org... Both these cases underscore the argument I laid out in my opening statement: Trying to focus an economy on being debt-free in the short-term in the hopes of boosting loan-confidence and savings, while it may bring debt down in the short term, does nothing to actually fuel economic growth or end recession. By contrast, a focus on stimulus, while raising debt in the short term, allows for enough financial gain in the long term to reduce or eliminate debt with the extra money that will eventually be generated. To break the whole thing down in very simplistic terms, stimulus can function as the kick-start to get an economic motor running, and once running, that motor will eventually cover its own motion. Austerity generates nothing but moralistic, self-righteous smarm.
Queen is the greatest rock band of the 20th century

Queen is the best rock band of the 20th century because they are awesome. I mean who could forget the greatest beat ever: boom boom clap! Boom boom clap! Boom boom clap! Also, no band could come close to the greatest song ever invented: Bohemian Rhapsody. I don't think that I need to say anything more then that because that is all I need to persuade you.
Queen is the greatest rock band of the 20th century

I would like to say that your lack of aggressiveness is a really lovely thing to see on a site which seems to have everyone at each other's throats. I am sorry if I have been going at you to hard, as this is your first debate and best of luck to you! I agree with you that Bohemian Rhapsody is different but you kind of give me my response by saying that most of the songs follow my theory. I hope that you enjoy some of the alternatives that I have suggested while continuing to like Queen. Regardless of this debate, we must unite against this sort of thing. . http://www.youtube.com...