BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing

Thank you for the complement krabman, here is my response Rebuttal to 1. While lecture notes can be helpful, nothing is better than being able to make the lecturer repeat himself, which you can do to online videos on websites like Khan Academy. For practicing, you have an unlimited amount of practice problems on Khan Academy where you can keep trying it over and over again. This system can still be used in the classroom as mentioned in the above videos, a teacher can monitor Khan Academy problems done right and wrong and can even come and help the student without him or her even having to raise their hand. With the teacher their students will know when they have mastered a Khan topic just by checking their progress and coming to the kid if they feel the kid is struggling. Teachers can also teach understanding alongside Khan Academy in school, and once the demand comes, Khan or someone else could add more about understanding. Rebuttal to 2. On the contrary, fast learners are just kids who are able to understand concepts and can solve them well. I am not talking about the memorizers. And even then, you are still being speculative, a fast learner does not mean he or she memorizes. I would also like to note that my opponent has not mentioned the fact the teachers can now help students at an individual level or that most of the kids in my video used to not like math but now they do thanks to Khan Academy. Again, Good Luck Krabman
Riddle Challenge(Solve 2 riddles)

1) I have roots but you can't see em, I'm taller than trees yet I never grow. Who am I? 2) A couple were going in their car when suddenly a problem occurred causing them to stop.The man having little knowledge about cars himself decides to run upto a mechanic shop 3 miles away but when he makes it back after getting the mechanic he finds that his wife is dead and there is a stranger in the car.All windows were rolled up the doors were locked and no damage was done to the car.How did the stranger get inside?
Should we Obligate big companies to donate to poor countries (for health and education)

t first the idea seems highly logical, after all big companies that mainly operate in the western world are obviously much richer than then many poor countries and it wouldnt take them a large amount of their resources to greatly help those countries in the long term, however this argument only works if you assume that donating would cause the country's economy to benefit in the long term and stay richer than they were, this is not always the case: take north korea as an obvious example, we can see a clear difference that happened over time between it's economy and the economy of it's neighbor... and simply throwing more money at it wont stabilize their economy or make everything better... because what's broken is the system itself. in conclusion i would say that in most cases throwing money at the problem like you suggest wont solve anything.
Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

Presuppositionalist xtians live under the delusion that their arguments are the only ones that can ground reason, one of the elements they collectively lump into something they call the 'pre-conditions of intelligibility". But can they really claim this, when they cannot articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction, and insist that the universe is ruled by magic, mysticism, and beings so far from human experience that those beings have no meaning. In particular they believe in a god that can alter the facts of reality at a whim, leaving the xtian unsure as to whether they are, for example, drinking water or wine. The xtian position becomes incoherent. The traditional excuse has been to demand that they know rationality through revelation from a being more powerful than them. However note here that they cannot know anything if magic rules the universe. Any revelation will not give any certainty, because they can merely be victims of a deception, in the same way for example that Abraham was deceived into the attempted sacrifice of Isaac, or indeed from the action of Satan posing as their diety. If they cannot break free from this problem, they are holding onto irrational claims. But it gets worse. If all you have is "revelation", then your argument is fallacious, because revelation relies on your ability to form concepts using your senses and reasoning in the first place. This is something you cannot do without borrowing from my worldview and thereby commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. My worldview states that the senses and reasoning are self-evident, self-justifying and axiomatically valid. Quoting from Leonard Peikoff (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 39; italics original): "The validity of the senses is an axiom. Like the fact of consciousness, the axiom is outside the province of proof because it is precondition of any proof. " Proof consists in reducing an idea back to the data provided by the senses. These data themselves, the foundation of all subsequent knowledge, precede any process of inference. They are the primaries of cognition, the unchallengeable, the"self-evident." So, what can the xtian give as a rational way to know truth from fiction? Answering this question is the sole purpose of this debate. Perhaps the presuppositional xtian has a way to know other than by revelation. We shall see. But the rules are: 1) if you reply stating your reasoning is valid, because of revelation, you lose based on the stolen concept fallacy 2) if you resort to any claim invoking magic and magical beings (inc. gods of any description), you lose based on incoherency of your position 3) if you attempt to merely assert that I use my senses and reasoning to justify my senses and reasoning, then firstly you cannot read or comprehend English and secondly you lose because you attack a strawman 4) if you attack my worldview, you lose because you are using your senses and reasoning to attack the validity of senses and reasoning.
Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

I have nothing to rebut from the previous round, but will further add to my argument by considering the TANG proposed by Michael Martin. Here Martin rebuts TAG (for logic, induction, morality) type arguments by simply pointing out that any of these are undermined and are indeed untrue if a god is the cause. As reason and rationality presuppose logic, undermining logic by arguing it is grounded in a god, undermines the theists own argument. To quote Martin: "Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false."
Christians should support the State of Israel

Warmest regards to my opponent. No human being is perfect, and therefore no Nation State is perfect. While Israel's tumultuous history cannot be ignored, the fact remains that they are not always in the right about everything. It is not the responsibility of a good friend to support someone all the time; indeed, a good friend's primary obligation is often to be the one that tells they're friend, "Hey, what you're doing is wrong."A lot of what Israel is doing lately is exactly that: wrong. On a wide variety of issues, ranging from their creation of new settlements in the West Bank to their undiplomatic postures towards other middle eastern states, Israel is too often a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It behaves like the national equivalent of a second grader running around taunting its peers on the playground, confident that it's big brother United States will beat up anyone who responds too severely. At some point, that older brother is more than justified in saying, "You need to stop provoking this."In conclusion, any state - Israel or anyone else - should be supported when right, and rebuked when wrong. Principle is more important than person.
The Theory Of Evolution Is False

Evolution is the assumption that is based on something that first comes to the question, who made the planets, who made the cells, who made the animals, who made water, who made food that science just can not explain. In order for evolution to be correct, we couldn't be descended from apes. First, apes have no knowledge of speech except for screeching and yelling. We could not evolve from apes purely. In this link, this explains why evolution is false without using god's word http://www.ucg.org... I have looked at your links and I think they are interesting on how people can believe it. Darwin uses always "perhaps" he has no real evidence backing up his the evolution theory. http://www.theguardian.com... I have a feeling this link will in lighten you on Darwin and his theory. In this link is proof that god is real. With all respects, let's see you talk your way out of this. I also want you to say next round what my links said and what they were about.
The Theory Of Evolution Is False

Rebuttal 1: that is not a change. Wemen have suffered through that for thousands of years! Rebuttal 2: Have your religion examined any macro evolution? No? I thought not. Rebuttal 3: this is probably evolutions weakest part! There had been no scientific proof of an animal evolving and losing or gaining chromosomes. So this makes the theory of evolution invalid. also I can tell now you are an atheistwhy do you believe in the big bang theory I mean there is a planet before us then who created the planets and how did living cells come into the equation and so you're saying our solar system was a lot more complex before? Because the surrounding planets do not hold all the elements we have found on earth today. all these elements of carbon oxygen nitrogen lithium and Iron? Got you thinking right?
There should be severe restrictions against selling lottery tickets online.

I understand what you're saying but that was - again - a little overreaction on your side. The fact that someone has no brain is not exactly fault of person who has brain and knows how to use it. Why do you want to complicate things for those who are wise and not reckless? Besides, n-brain can find their way to lose money anyways. You want to make boundaries and difficulties for the smart ones to keep jerks away? Really? Edd, you also mentioned children. Isn't bringing them up correctly parents job? Keep your credit cards and their data away or even better, teach your child responsibility! Tell them that money don't grow on trees. If however that child or teenager still defrauds parents' cash then they have to face the consequences. It's really that simple.
There should be severe restrictions against selling lottery tickets online.

Hi Sheppie, Sorry for forfeiting the second round - I failed to reach the computer on time. Anyhow, back to the argument - You mentioned 'brains' but unfortunately, many people lack this simple thing. I do not really see your point. True, some of the websites which offer secure ways of obtaining lottery tickets or even making bets do have great security measures - I can give them that. But even so, don't you think that the problem still exists even despite that? After all, let's forget my friend for a moment and take children into consideration - I believe it would be very easy for a teenager to spy on a parent and learn all the necessary codes / passwords / whatever to be able to log onto the site and burn some cash on the tickets...What happens next if the child doesn't win yet the money on the tickets is gone? More interestingly, what happens if the child does win? I an already imagine lawsuits and newspapers headlines talking over and over about the security measures of lottery websites. I am just making a point here before something bad happens. As such - I still believe some changes should be introduced if procuring lottery tickets is so easy but I am open for more debating if we have time and inclination ;)
There should be severe restrictions against selling lottery tickets online.

Edward, I think that you are overreacting a little bit. Everyone has a right to have a hobby, something that pleases them (as long as it is not harmful to anybody else). Restrictions? Why? You can't play if you have no money - that a restriction enough. So what that teenagers have easy access to it or irresponsible people. That is a nice way to teach them some responsibility. You have money, you bet, you lose, you don't have money and it's nobody's fault but yours if you can't pay your bills afterwards. See - lesson learned. If you make access to such online games and lotteries more restricted there will be more cheating and more hacking and illegal gaming. Right now it is as simple as I mentioned before: you have the money - you play; you don't have the money - no gaming for you. Why complicate things? Besides the way you can get access to or buy tickets or participate in gaming is safe and legal. There are no hidden agendas. For example, look here: http://www.lotteryoffice.com... Those guys sell tickets but they have great safeguards and are reliable. Is there something unclear about their rules and conditions? No! SAFE. If someone has a problem with gambling and spends time in casinos both in real world and the virtual one, instead of sightseeing while on a vacation - just plays online then I would dare to say that the particular person has a serious issues with addiction which has nothing to do with easy access. Implement restrictions and addicts will find a way to discover illegal gambling and that's a scenario for tragedy. So no Edward: no restrictions are needed just more brains for people.
There should be severe restrictions against selling lottery tickets online.

Hello and welcome, Recently, I have been on a short trip with a friend of mine, who really enjoys gambling. I wouldn't yet venture as far as to say he has a problem with it, suffice it to say that he really likes the thrill of betting small amounts of cash (at least that's what he claims) in hope for much greater money. Back to the topic: The trip we went on wasn't long but it was outside of our country. I was therefore surprised to see that in a hotel room where we had free wi-fi he logged onto his computer and not only checked the recent lottery numbers but was, above all, able to buy the lottery ticket online with real money and put a bet. It seemed so easy and effortless I asked him whether I could do it and he explained that all that is need is to have an account and send them the money you wish to use in your bets. After that it is just choosing the lottery you want, having the necessary funds deducted from your account and hopefully R11; expecting winning. My idea is therefore that since purchasing lottery tickets online is so easy, virtually everybody can do it, especially people not eligible to do so, such as teenagers. I would therefore argue that more severe restrictions be implemented. What do you think?
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

Let's look at the harms that 2-D games have done and observe whether 3-D games are likely to mitigate these harms or amplify them. (1) Video-game addiction involves an addiction to 2-D games. http://www.video-game-addiction.org... It is often linked to both the adrenaline rush and the good graphics of games that draw you in. These are only amplified if the game is 3-D and you both feel more fear by things seeming to come 'out of the screen' at you since the adrenaline rush would only be increased. (2) The link between video-games and violence. http://www.deseretnews.com... Video games no only host violence within them but even the ones that don't are based around the philosophy of valuing one's own pleasure over their real-life duties. The entire gaming community enjoy escaping reality and their duties, both domestic and professional, by entering an alternate world where none of the rules apply; not even even the laws of physics. This gradually decreases one's capacity for self-control. If games are 3-D, they'd only increase the extent to which they 'draw you in' and so the effects would only be amplified. (3) Games are played on a 2-D surface, so it makes more logical sense for the game to be 2-D.
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

3D games, due to having a freely movable camera, have an enhancement advantage. For example, let's take the ending of Mega Man 7. At the ending, Megaman has Dr. Wily literally begging and bowing for mercy. By nearly killing him, Megaman violates the rules of roboethics. The ending probably would have been more dramatic in 3D, and here is why: 1. (We get close-ups of several sides of Wily's flying machine as it explodes) 2. (The camera is on the ground and pointed at Wily as he falls) 3. (Slow dramatic music starts playing) 4. (Wily starts bowing. The camera is positioned so we can see both Wily and Megaman) 5. (Megaman's eyes turn red) (closeup on Megaman's face) (dramatic crescendo) 6. Megaman (in creepy, deep and distorted voice): I'm gonna do what I should have done a long time ago! (Switches to fire ability.) (dramatic crescendo) 7. Wily: No! Please! Spare me! I promise I'll quit wreaking havoc! Weren't you programmed to spare all lives no matter what!? You're breaking the rules of roboethics! 8. Megaman (still speaking in mean voice): I... AM... MORE... THAN... A ROBOT!!!!! 9. (Beam drops on Wily.) (descendo) 10. (Megaman takes a few steps back in response to the falling beam hesitates) (camera is a few feet behind him and 2.5 inches to his right) 11. (Bass appears before Megaman) 12. Bass: those who hesitate are lost. (Departs, takes Wily with him)
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

1. I am not fighting my own resolution. I am clarifying it. My argument in round 2 was about how 3D is more enjoyable. That should have made it clear what I meant by "better." The point was that 3D games have more emotional involvement with the player, and therefore are more enjoyable. My resolution from the start was that 3D games are more enjoyable. The only reasons why I did not clarify that earlier were A: because you didn't give a definition of "better," and B: I did not know you would not understand what I meant. 2. "That's like saying playing football without running up the walls shouldn't make sense just because running on one surface is, in your own opinion, less enjoyable." Actually, no it is not. It is a valid point because 3D games have a variety advantage, which also comes with running up the walls in football. For example: 2.1: 3D games make the player feel like they are more free to move around because they can move in basically every direction they can in real life. in 2D, however, you are generally limited to two directions of movement: left and right. That is why I prefer Sonic Colors to the classics. 2.2: the freely moveable camera allows for bigger, more complex levels. For instance, since the Wii version of Sonic Colors is 3D, the level designers were able to hide the red rings in more subtle places than the DS version, which is 2D. You can also make more possible ways to complete the level in a 3D game. 2.3: generally, only a 3D game can functionally have rock music. And lastly, the logic in playing a 2D game just because it is on a 2D surface is entirely subjective and only in a player's personal opinion. One can argue that it is or is not, but it is still only a subjective opinion.
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

Pro is fighting his own resolution now and rewriting in in round 4/5. I refuse to accept this offer. This is an out of order alteration far too late into the game. Actually if you play on a 2-D screen it does make more sense for a game to be 2-D than 3-D. That's like saying playing football without running up the walls shouldn't make sense just because running on one surface is, in your own opinion, less enjoyable. Do not see how stupid that sounds? Your BoP is to uphold the resolution, not your amended version of it. One round left Pro, your chance of winning this hangs on a thin line. Make it count.
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

1. That's not what I meant by "better." I meant "more enjoyable," not "more appropriate, advantageous, or well-advised." That means addiction and all that are irrelevant to this debate. 2. "Just because you're too cheap to get flat-screen doesn't mean the d**n screen surface is 3-D. That's physically impossible, by the way." That still doesn't make it more logical to play a 2D game.
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

"That logic does not apply to everybody. I played the Wii version of Sonic Colors, and all that 3D rush brought me enjoyment, not fear." The "enjoyment" from the rush is addictive. This is negative. I shall now define better for you. More appropriate, advantageous, or well advised [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] Something cannot be more well-advise, appropriate or advantageous if it has more drawbacks than the alternative and very few advantages over it. 3. "Games are played on a 2D surface," Actually, that is not always the case because not all TV's are flat screen. I have three non-flat screen TV's at home, and that does not make it any less logical for it to be a 3D game. Just because you're too cheap to get flat-screen doesn't mean the damn screen surface is 3-D. That's physically impossible, by the way.
Accept if you dare #1: 3D games are better than 2D games

1. "... If the game is 3-D... you feel more fear by things seeming to come 'out of the screen' at you since the adrenaline rush would only be increased." That logic does not apply to everybody. I played the Wii version of Sonic Colors, and all that 3D rush brought me enjoyment, not fear. 2. By "better," I meant that they were more enjoyable. Was that not obvious from my argument from round 2? Their long-term influence are irrelevant to this debate due to what I meant by "better." 3. "Games are played on a 2D surface," Actually, that is not always the case because not all TV's are flat screen. I have three non-flat screen TV's at home, and that does not make it any less logical for it to be a 3D game.