BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School text books are unneccassary and should be replaced with something more beneficial.

"After revieweing the source you listed, turns out that they are the cerators of educational learning material and obviously they are going to make claims in the favor of their products."These are all independent studies that arent in any way linked to those who cerate school textbooks, try again. Also it doesnt help to criticize my sources when the only sources you ever give are just people speaking their own opinion...."If you actually think that someone is going to learn much more efficiently with boring text in a book.... I can't say you know what you're saying."So just because I disagree with you, that must mean that I dont know what im talking about? Spectacular conduct pro..."we should instead be shown everything we'll be learning with computer software and everyone can have visual and interactive learning opportunities....."So your alternative to reading boring text in cheap textbooks is to have students read the same kind of boring text on computers and expensive gadgets? Schools are already under a massive budget crunch and can barely afford to give students textbooks made 9 years ago, how the hell are they supposed to afford giving every student their own computer to do the exact same thing a textbook would give them?"I am currently in Gr.12 so I've experienced everything first hand and truth be told, my marks have been much better when its visual and interactive"Opinions =/= Definite facts pro...."Your given source is the supplier of our learning materials and we don't want them to be the ones who benefit from student education"Saying the same false statement over and over also doesnt make it true pro...."you're link also states textbook weaknesses and ways to overcome them, instead overcoming the problem, you should find a mroe efficient way entirly"And how exactly is it 'efficient' to spend money that schools dont have to avoid having a problem that can be easily fixed?http://www.ehow.com...;
School text books are unneccassary and should be replaced with something more beneficial.

After revieweing the source you listed, turns out that they are the cerators of educational learning material and obviously they are going to make claims in the favor of their products. I could provide similar souces from a variety of websites like:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.mtholyoke.edu..."Its a proven fact that students don't learn as comprehensivly from text books in this day and age as they use to."You disagree? If you actually think that someone is going to learn much more efficiently with boring text in a book that only gives you a feel for what is expected for the test or assignments I can't say you know what you're saying. Technology has advanced far beyond what we expected it to and thaat has helped people in all different fields. If we could apply such drastic technologies over what problamatic procedures we have currently, productivity is guranteed to increase.A more visual interactive teaching process instead of solving questions based on text information, we should instead be shown everything we'll be learning with computer software and everyone can have visual and interactive learning opportunities which has been proven to be more beneficial for students willing to learn.I am currently in Gr.12 so I've experienced everything first hand and truth be told, my marks have been much better when its visual and interactive. Your given source is the supplier of our learning materials and we don't want them to be the ones who benefit from student education. Students should be the ones benefitting from student education. Teachers don't have to help you if you understand better and thats why with computer software, you would learn more easy.One more thing, you're link also states textbook weaknesses and ways to overcome them, instead overcoming the problem, you should find a mroe efficient way entirly. This is a way to cover up flaws and with a better system, we could remove those flaws entirly.
School text books are unneccassary and should be replaced with something more beneficial.

"Its a proven fact that students don't learn as comprehensivly from text books in this day and age as they use to."I disagree. In fact there is a lot of evidence suggesting that textbooks are the best way to teach course material since they literally provide guidance of what to teach, how to teach it, and gives examples for students to help learn the concept. The books are written by the most experienced people in the field of work the book is geared towards as well so textbooks are still a great tool to learn new material from. Therefore, even if the pro's unsupported claim that learning is down from the past, it can still be concluded that the learning is still at pretty high levels. http://www.coursecrafters.com... "textbooks leave only minimal examples of the learning material and they tell you to do the rest based on this knowledge."And if you still have problems, thats what the teacher is for. So whats the problem here?"What students really need is a more interactive and visual sense of education. Textbooks are not right for that"Those are just your own opinions though. There are studies that show that students still prefer textbooks over anything elsehttp://bevswiki.pbworks.com... (Jump to Conclusion)http://dl.acm.org..."Let's conclude, Tutors don't like textbook"Unsubstantiated opinion"Teacher's aren't too fond of them"Thats just false, teachers who are just starting out teaching rely almost entirely on textbooks to teach a class. http://www.teachervision.fen.com..."students would be better off learning in a more interactive visual way"You havent specified what a 'more visual way' even means...."which has been proven many times to be more beneficial than texbooks."Yet youve given no sources implying that such a bold claim is even remotely true......1000 characters.
School text books are unneccassary and should be replaced with something more beneficial.

Its a proven fact that students don't learn as comprehensivly from text books in this day and age as they use to. Keeping this in mind, textbooks leave only minimal examples of the learning material and they tell you to do the rest based on this knowledge. More times than not, there is a twist. They give you some of the required basics and ask you questions that get much harder from then on. The textbook won't tell you how to expand this knowledge but only test you and you will get an answer to check if you were right. What students really need is a more interactive and visual sense of education. Textbooks are not right for that.What students need is a solutions manual to the hardest of questions where it explains all the neccassary steps to achieve your solution. Tutors everywhere know that textbooks over complicate things and actually, so do most teachers, which is why they don't rely soloely on textbooks. This means there is much room for improvment.Let's conclude, Tutors don't like textbook, Teacher's aren't too fond of them and students would be better off learning in a more interactive visual way which has been proven many times to be more beneficial than texbooks.
Gun control legislation and deterring crime

Saying that gun control legislation does not deter crime is simply ignorant. My opponent could never logically argue the fact that if rocket launchers were legal for citizens to own that they wouldn't be used in criminal activity. While his point is accurate in that everything the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut did was illegal, including stealing his mothers assault rifle, if assault rifles were prohibited then he wouldn't have had a gun to steal in the first place. "How will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights?" my opponent asks. The simple answer is that gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets. I will not be naive and say that banning assault rifles will mean people will have no way to acquire them, because this simply isn't true. I also will not claim that banning assault rifles will solve our problem and prevent any further shootings, because it won't. But all it can do is help. The simple fact is that other than for hunting, there is no logical reason to own an assault rifle. One might say that they need it for "self protection", but unless a homeowner is facing a team of intruders in their home all armed to the teeth, a shotgun or pistol would do the job just fine. Seeing that there is no absolute need for these guns, why allow them to fill our streets and arm people who use them in mass shootings? My opponent's ideas for solving this problem sound perfect, in theory. However, the implementation of armed guards at schools across our country is something that will never happen for one simple reason, money. Obviously 90% of teachers approve of something that will make them safer every day, but when teachers are being laid off because of financial troubles our country faces today, what makes you think we can afford to station armed guards at every school in our country? The sad truth is that there are crazy people in this world who are capable of terrible things, and no one solution will be able to prevent their sick plots against children or even movie theater occupants without costing more money then our country is able to currently spend. Banning assault rifles would not fix the problem, but it would help. Getting as many guns like this off the street is the first step to solving the problem we face.
Gun control legislation and deterring crime

I have a firm conviction that gun control legislation is not only an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, but it isn't a deterrent towards criminals. In the recent massacre on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, the shooter Adam Lanza who killed 26 people; 20 defenseless children, and 6 courageous teachers. This event was one of the most catastrophic events that has ever occurred in the history of America. But gun control legislation would not have stopped Adam Lanza from doing what he did. Everything he did that day was illegal. He stole his mother's gun, he killed her, stole her car, broke into the school, and caused destruction to 26 lives. He knew what he did was illegal, but still did all of those illegal acts anyway. So how will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights? The legislation will not stop criminals from the commission of a crime because committing crimes is what they do. The only people that this legislation affects is the law abiding citizens who are being restricted. I along with many others in this country share this belief and also that if there were armed guards at the school, then the number of lives taken on this terrible day would have been substantially lower due to the fact that they would have had the capability of protecting themselves opposed to being entirely destitute. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a well known crusader who has spent millions of his own money on gun control efforts, called the NRA's idea for armed guards in schools "a paranoid vision of America." But teachers appear to disagree with Bloomberg's assumption. Almost 90% said an armed police officer would improve safety in their schools, not make them less safe, according to the survey. (Sperry) The statistic speaks for itself, and already school districts and towns have passed budget plans to keep kids safe in the school by using security guards and other security alarming systems. This money is well spent for the safety of the children attending schools all across America, and this perception is a real deterrent for criminals. A criminal will not try breaking into a school when multiple security guards are guarding the schools with firearms or alarming systems make it much more of an obstacle to complete their unjust attempt of committing a crime. Sperry, Todd. "Survey: Teachers Don't Want to Carry Guns, Do Support Armed Guards." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States ought to be abolished

I want to give credit to my opponent for arguing many sides to the argument. There is not always one side to every story which my opponent takes into account. My opponents statements about the different types of prices are completely true. And yes, on that last sentence, I did not word it properly, but that's what I meant. On Inflation "However, how does the Federal Reserve buying securities from banks, who then simply hoard the cash in their vaults because of the market interest rate (I will explain the zero lower-bound if challenged) cause consumers to be unable to buy as much output?"Your argument is false. Only recently has the FED started to keep its money in reserves. This has only been in effect since the new QE2 has gone into effect. And that also has major problems with running up the nations debt. Also this has not decreased the nations money supply. in fact, it is still increasing. So no, inflation is still a tax because the government receives the lost purchasing power of the people, and it is still happening.http://www.dallasnews.com...And, no that is false. Inflation is a regressive tax. This isn't the first time this has happened. This started in Europe with their central banks hundreds of years ago. They realized they could only tax the people so much until they had a revolt on their hands. They figured out that the natural tax ceiling was about 44-48% They then created a central bank and were able to take in, at some points in time, up to 80% in taxes. And about a 3-4% inflation rate helping the poor. I really don't know where you got this information. If you could cite resources, it would be very helpful. And I had not heard of the FED coming in to help in 1986. But, even still, these kind of economic crashes are natural in every government. My main argument, is that the FED does more harm than good, not to mention the corruption that occurs within it. It still dilutes the worth of our dollar. Sourceshttp://libertarianinvestments.blogspot.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.dallasnews.com...
The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States ought to be abolished

I would like to ask my opponent what his definition of price stability is. It seems like all the Federal Reserve does is increase the money supply, which in turn causes inflation, and then makes the prices of goods appear to go up. Inflation and the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve is the main cause for inflation in the United States. Inflation comes from growths in the money supply. Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.[6] –Wikipedia "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes." So spoke Federal Reserve Governor Benjamin Bernanke in 2002, prior to becoming the central bank's presiding chairman during the credit crisis and stock market crash of 2008. They do this by creating money from nothing. This money is then pumped into the economy and dilutes the currency. This causes prices to appear to go up. Prices don’t really go up because the ways goods are produced stay the same. It just takes more money to produce the goods because of inflation. Inflation is also a tax. It is our most unfair tax. I really hate explaining this because its time consuming, so I'm just going to let Ron Paul do it for me. It’s a quick video, don’t worry. The Federal Reserve maintaining the economy “The Federal Reserve Bank can provide economically useful counter-cyclical policies that could not happen under a gold standard or free banking system. Sudden reductions in the quantity or velocity of money due to various events in an economy can, without justification, cause output to fall, unemployment to rise, and consequently overall happiness to decrease. By expanding the monetary base through the printing press, the Federal reserve can offset the contractionary effects of such events.” Can it? I don’t think I have ever heard of that happening. One of the things that my opponent describes is bank runs. Bank runs are a self-fulfilling prophecy of a bank going out of business because people believe it will go out of business. This was the main cause of the Great Depression. And in fact, the Federal Reserve was created before the Great Depression. It did not maintain the economy. And there have been countless other recessions and depressions since then. Many of them were caused by similar problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... My point is that the Federal Reserve does not maintain stability in the economy. Its main function it seems, is to dilute the value of the dollar. It taxes us beyond our control and it actually destabilizes the economy. http://www.youtube.com...
The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States ought to be abolished

I have 2 main contentions against the proposition that the Federal Reserve should be abolished1: The Federal Reserve bank is necessary to maintaining price stability. I will explain further if challenged, but prices convey vital information to producers, consumers, workers, and investors in an economy. Sudden and/or unexpected changes in the overall level of prices can have adverse effects on national output by changing the terms of trade. A central, independent monetary authority, like the Federal Reserve, can help to maintain price stability that cannot happen either under a Gold Standard or under a free-banking system. 2: The Federal Reserve Bank can provide economically useful counter-cyclical policies that could not happen under a gold standard or free banking system. Sudden reductions in the quantity or velocity of money due to various events in an economy can, without justification, cause output to fall, unemployment to rise, and consequently overall happiness to decrease. By expanding the monetary base through the printing press, the Federal reserve can offset the contractionary effects of such events.
French is more useful than Spanish on a Global Scale

French has been deemed second most useful non-English language for business by Bloomberg rankings. http://www.bloomberg.com... In addition, French countries still have more successful economies despite the 410 million people that know Spanish, who are mainly concentrated in Spain and Latin America. French speakers can be found in ocean territories, Quebec, West Africa, Madagascar, and Europe as well. Thus, the Spanish is useless except for the fact many Latin-Americans and Spaniards use it. After all, French speaking economies are high ranked in both overall GDP and GDP per capita (France, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Andorra)
French is more useful than Spanish on a Global Scale

On a global scale, there are about 410 million native Spanish speakers and is the second most spoken language. Whereas there are about 77 million native French speakers in the world. Second of all, the most popular sport in the world, soccer, has A LOT of Spanish speaking fans. The World Cup for 2014 is in Brazil, and most of the audience are... you guessed it, Spanish speaking fans. With many Spanish is what I like to call a phonetic language, meaning that the rules of writing are very close to the rules of pronunciation. A Spanish vowel has a single pronunciation and the consonants may have two or more sounds. Spanish is also easier to learn.
French is more useful than Spanish on a Global Scale

French is more useful than Spanish because French countries such as Switzerland and Luxembourg have a higher GDP per capita than any country with Spanish as the official language. In addition, France is the fifth wealthiest economy in the world. Meanwhile, Spain has high unemployment rate (http://www.tradingeconomics.com...) Along with that, South-Central American countries to tend to have higher crime rate : http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Overall, if you're one to look for a safe life and profits, you would have a better wealth and safety learning French instead of Spanish (assuming you had to time/ ability to)
Arabisation of Islam

How do you say Allah has promised to keep the Quran etc..... Prove it to me that Allah has promised these things. I have never objected that people don't practise the simple way of living according to Islam. What do you mean by true Islam? Islam is surely getting arabised. For example the I.S or the Al-Qaeda are busy creating violence and arabising the Sufi culture. Is this the true way of Islam? And prove it to me that there is something like' Day of Judgement' So how do you conclude Islam is still the relgion it was and will stay the same?
Arabisation of Islam

Well to some extent you are right. But there are still many people out there who practice true Islam. Islam will never change InshaAllah because Allah has promised to keep the Quran which is the basis of religion; in His Security. Islam is a religion that asks Muslims to unite for a cause. If Islam were arabised no one would stand up for a cause. For example many Muslim countries were involved in ceasing the Palestinian war with Israel. Or what was happening in Myanmar; Muslims were against it too. So Islam is still the religion it was and will stay the same till the Day of Judgement.
Humans Should Discontinue Space Travel in order to Prevent Harm to Extraterrestrials

This debate assumes that extraterrestrial beings exist, and merely have yet to be discovered. Full Resolution Humans Should Discontinue Space Exploration in order to Prevent Harming Extraterrestrial Life Definitions Extraterrestrial life-any living organism that originated outside the planet Earth. Space Exploration-Sending voyages (manned space-craft) outside of Earth. (Does not include satellites, telescopes, etc. ) Harm-cause something unfavorable upon another. Rules BoP is shared. No new arguments in the final round. All citations should be shown within the debate (Footnotes preferred) Be civil and respectful. Round Structure R1 Acceptance R2 Present Case R3 Rebuttals R4 Defend Arguments Look forward to a good debate!
Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse.

http://www.youtube.com... Here's another video. It isn't necessarily about childhood obesity, but it is a good video on obesity in America (and is somewhat entertaining). Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child(ren). By neglecting to feed a child nutritious foods and allowing them adequate amount of exercise, you are abusing them. We can encourage them to feel better (which would maintain mental health), but they still will be physically unhealthy. The emotional damage of being teased for your weight (something I can relate to) is absolutely devastating. Eating dinner as a family (without distractions) has been proven to be better for the kids. Children are less likely to smoke and engage in risky behaviors. If parents are too busy to cook dinner and eat with their kids at the dinner table, maybe they should've reconsidered having a family. To answer my opponent's question, "And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter?": Of course it should matter! The human body wasn't meant to carry 30 extra lbs. of fat. The fat kid most likely has a sleep apnea or a CPAP machine to held them breathe at night. The fat kid will probably develop type 2 diabetes. The fat kid probably has high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol. In response to my opponent's question, "Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion[?]": Society's opinion is the right opinion. Being overweight or obese isn't normal and should not be tolerated. Yes, we need to encourage positive self-esteem habits in our children, but something like being heavy is completely preventable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...