BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

Thank you for accepting. You are pointing out some of the successful traits of classroom education, but I do not think that a group setting is the ideal environment for the raw process of installing an understanding of math/chemistry/physics/biology/other core subjects into a growing brain, which is the ultimate goal of k-12 education [1]. The priority should be raw education, not preparing students for job environments, and besides how does personalized education prevent students from preparing for jobs? Teachers can still force them to learn at a certain minimum pace with personalized instruction. The Khan Academy approach has already been implemented within schools successfully [2]. A common observation from the implementation is that students are more interested in learning and that the ones who finish the learning requirements early have the option to go onto advanced topics like calculus without being bottlenecked by the curriculum. In classroom education, this just is not possible and often the bright kids are wasting time listening to the teacher explain things they already understand. You even admitted the pace of classroom education is a problem but you didn't suggest a way to fix it. Khan Academy fixes this problem. Your point that classrooms are better because they allow students to get used to deadlines/group work is invalid. These things are also possible in a school system that uses a personalized approach. There is nothing stopping a teacher from giving a test on a certain topic on a certain date, or giving group projects, in a course that uses Khan Academy as a source for material. Also there is no reason for anyone to want a student to be behind in their studies. In fact that's what we want to avoid. Students in classroom settings can get a passing grade even if they don't understand part of the course. They might pass a math class but not understand how to square a quadratic equation. What advantage does such a student get if they move on without understanding something?
Existence of God

O Burden of poof For convenience and because I feel like I need to review this ; I shall not make any further comment. O Experiencing God A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled This is not debunked nor addressed properly. How does anything my opponent said show that my and others answered prayer was actually not answered? My opponent has misunderstood what prayer is ; prayer is not a tool. C: The video (This was exactly my experience). "How do you know what you were experiencing wasn't a misinterpretation of natural phenomena?" 1.What are the chances that this would happen to me ? 2.What are the chances that someone would post a video who had the exact experience ? 3.What are the chances when one takes all experiences from all Christians ? Part 2: A: How can one refute such claims Obviously you can't. C:We can play a game of probabilities. Lets assume I am lying and I never experienced this. "genuinely mistaken" How is that possible or probable ? The questions and answers don't apply here since I didn't expect this response. "Would you also argue that because say a Hindu or a Muslim had a religious experience, it also validates Vishnu or Allah?" No, it validates God. Argument from Contingency "You have an artist who "causes" a sculpture to exist." However, the artist may decide not to carve a sculpture. Wherefore, the sculpture is contingent. "How is the universe's existence as a "necessary being", particularly if we were to define it as "all that exists" any less of a contradiction than calling god one?" You are hard to understand hence I can't respond. However, Ill give it a try: Necessary being = all that exists =/= a dictionary. "the fact that we are discussing the status of god's existence itself suggests that god's nonexistence is POSSIBLE" Possibility = Ignorance =/= Common sense. Also why are you attacking the conclusion ? I mean if the premises are true then the conclusion follows, right ? Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause My opponent surprisingly concedes this point. 2. The universe more likely than not began to exist. It is more probable. "It has not been established that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe" A source please ? It is generally accepted that the Big Bang began this universe: http://en.wikipedia.org... Also I forgot to mention Einsteins theory of relativity ; his theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead an effect. I hope my opponent tries to be clearer in the final round.
Existence of God

Let's begin, shall we? I will simply answer each of my opponents arguments an deal with them as such. O Burden of Proof This I fear makes no sense from a critical standpoint. One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion. I have, as I've outlined previously, made none. All the opponent has suggested was a weak claim that is tantamount to "it looks created, and everything has a creator right?" which is not substantiated nor evidenced. Because of this, I can and do reject it and with it reject the attempt at shifting the said burden. Now onto: Experiencing God: 1.I experienced God. 2.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction 3.Other people experienced God http://www.csmonitor.com...... 4.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction Conclusion: God exists> I'd like for you to substantiate 1 and 3. How does one know they've experienced god? How do they know it wasn't something else? A momentary episode or a hallucination? In fact, how could one verify such claims? If it can't be, why should anyone accept it? Examples of such a being (or beings)? <2.This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. 3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. 4.What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. 5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. 6.Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. Conclusion: Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. http://plato.stanford.edu...; It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself? -- my favorite! <1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause> Any example of things that have begun to exist, given the contention with the "beginnings" we have evidence for are not "beginnings" in the strict sense but are "changes"? <2. The universe more likely than not began to exist> Unsubstantiated and hence rejected. God more likely than not exists> With the contentions with each points above, the conclusion is deemed (you guessed it) unsubstantiated. All arguments are based on probability, otherwise we all would be theists.> All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here? Having said all that, perhaps my opponent has several insights or clarifications of each points I've had contentions with which may be more than insightful!
Existence of God

O Introduction Thank you for accepting. O Burden of Proof My opponent thinks that he has no burden of proof. Belief in God is a basic belief as we can see via history ; this universe and everything in it gives us a sense of a creator. Now nothing I have just said proves God but it does show us that atheists have a burden of proof. O Arguments Experiencing God: 1.I experienced God. 2.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction 3.Other people experienced God http://www.csmonitor.com... 4.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction Conclusion: God exists Argument from Contingency: 1.A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists. 2.This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. 3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. 4.What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. 5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. 6.Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. Conclusion: Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. http://plato.stanford.edu... Kalam Cosmological argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe more likely than not began to exist Conclusion: God more likely than not exists O Note All arguments are based on probability, otherwise we all would be theists.
Existence of God

To begin with, I must make certain clarifications regarding my position as well as what my stance as an atheist means. Too many times I've heard the claim that atheism means that I "believe or assert that there is no god". This isn't true. Rather, atheism is best defined as "lacking belief in god", which makes no assertions and thus is not a truth claim. After all, Atheism is divided into its prefix; "A" meaning Without, and of course "Theism", which means belief in god. That having said, this makes an important demarcation on how my arguments would proceed. As an atheist who simply does not believe that god exists, in effect does not share the burden of proof that a theist who believes and thus asserts does. This also proves to be an indication of how my arguments will go. Because I do not make assertions regarding the existence of the being of whom as far as I know no evidence exists for, I don't see a reason to assume such a being would exist. Hence with the burden of proof on the theist side, if he were to not be successful, all I am required to do is to show his position through the burden of proof to be unsubstantiated and thus not rational. Let the debate begin!
Existence of God

O Introduction I want to see if my opponent is willing to debate me hence round one will be introduction only, my opponent may present his own arguments. Now if he decides to present something like "Bible contains contradictions" I require that only one contradiction may be presented ; likewise with similar arguments. O Titles of my Arguments Argument 1: Experiencing God Argument 2: Argument from contingency Argument 3 Kalam Cosmological argument O My opponent I hope you accept. Thank you
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

My opponent did not refute any of my specific points, so please cross-apply them here. Moving on to refutation of my opponents argument. In the case of the Spanish Influenza, the national and global health care systems were particularly weak, nowhere near the levels they're at today. No one was vaccinated. It was near impossible to properly treat individuals. The swine flu is nowhere near as deadly as the Spanish influenza, and the health care system, globally, is much stronger. Vaccinations are also already being handed out. I as the con am not suggesting that no one be vaccinated. I am proving that it isn't justified to mandate immunization for all. We must value liberty over life, and must not impose a single belief upon all. Given that my opponent didn't attack any of these, we must assume he agrees with them. Silence is consent. With that, I beg for a con ballot.
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Well, I had hoped to debate this in a Lincoln Douglas format, but if my opponent would rather not, I can accept debating it in a more casual format. Thanks to skull95w for accepting my debate. As my opponent stated, t is true that people can die from disease; however, we need to see that requiring everyone to be immunized is unjust and immoral. Requiring all to be immunized takes away the liberty of those who wish not to be immunized. Taking away the rights of others invalidates basic rights of humans. John Stuart Mill said: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." We need to see in this round that Mill was correct, and that we need to negate the resolution in order to more fully deliver liberty to all. My opponent in his sentence seems to be arguing that we need to value having a life over liberty. However, if we have not liberty, then why do we need to have a life? Sure, one may say that requiring a simple vaccination is not taking away enough liberty for it to be more important than life. However, we need to see that each individual believes in separate and unique ideas and beliefs, and many devote their lives to their ideals. Who are we as a government, a people, a society, to say that their beliefs are strictly wrong and our beliefs are strictly right? Take the example of all those followers of the Jehovah's Witness faith. Their religion states that vaccines ought not to occur, and to accept vaccination is a sin. This faith also states that only 144,000 people get into heaven. Essentially, if the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct, and they are required to be vaccinated, you are condemning them to Hell. Is this just? Really, we need to see that we need to negate because if affirmed, the resolution takes away our liberty, takes away our rights, and ultimately imposes a singles belief onto all. We must follow the words of Charles Kingsley when he states, "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought." We need to see that through affirmation, a man is not free to do what he ought under all circumstances, and negate.
Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative. He is the worst choice for the Republican nomination.

Since we have both pretty much used the words "conservative" and "Republican" interchangeably throughout this debate, I'm going to assume that we're in agreement that the Republican party represents the primary "conservative" interests in the United States. That said, the only real way we can judge what it means to be "conservative" *today* is by analyzing the Republican party *today*. It doesn't matter that 50 years ago, "conservative" implied small government, low taxes, and non-interventionist foreign policy; the fact of the matter is that *today* "conservative" means the sort of thing we see in the modern Republican party. And, as I have already established very well, without any direct refutation from my opponent, Mike Huckabee fits into the current model of the Republican party and conservatism *very well*. When most people think of the word "conservative" today, they imagine someone pretty much just like Huckabee; the sort of values that used to be important to conservatives, and that my opponent is promoting, now pretty much only exist under the term "libertarian". Even if you think this first part of my line of reasoning is flawed, or hinged too much on semantics, the second part of my attack on the resolution/topic is more than enough to prove that it is not true. Mike Huckabee fits very well into what the Republican party represents today, and what Republican voters are looking for (consider his now *national* lead in the polls). And as I have established, without any real direct refutation from my opponent, there are candidates in the race for the Republican nomination who do not fit into the Republican mold as well as Huckabee does. So the concept that he is "the worst choice for the Republican nomination" clearly falls; and in most debate rules, if the Con side can successfully refute any part of the resolution/topic, they have thus successfully refuted the *entire* resolution/topic.
Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative. He is the worst choice for the Republican nomination.

Welcome to your first debate on debate.org! This is only my third. Your argument about this being the way conservatism has gone and therefore Huckabee is a good candidate for the party is not correct. It would be correct if there were not strict constructionist and "old fashioned" conservatives on the stage. So what we're debating is not if he fits alot of modern day conservative principles it's which way should the party go? Old fashioned conservativism or modern conservatism. Now we're debating right and wrong, good policy v. bad policy. There are several reasons why modern conservatism is not the right choice. How about higher taxes for a start? Huckabee did it 92 times in Arkansas. How about going soft on crime? Huckabee pardoned many murderers and rapists. How about expanding government? He did that too. On the other side of the spectrum we have Ron Paul and Rudy. Both have lowered taxes, are still tough on crime, immigration and terrorism, and both defend the constitution and States rights. States rights I might remind you is the biggest check and balance on the Federal Government we have.
Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative. He is the worst choice for the Republican nomination.

You seem to have ignored the critical point I was getting at throughout the first part of my case (as I summarized it, "though he may not fit what it used to mean to be conservative, Mike Huckabee is a perfect example of the modern definition of conservative, and thus the first part of this resolution falls.") What I'm saying here is that although you are understandably concerned about the direction conservatism and the Republican party have gone, the simple fact of the matter is that they *have gone* in that direction. And through going in that direction, they have re-defined what it is to be conservative, and Mike Huckabee is exemplary of that new definition. The resolution/topic says nothing about the Constitution, and does not ask who is and isn't a "strict constructionist". You seem to think that those concepts are imbedded in the term "conservative"; but you are working off of the old definition, which has been invalidated, justly or not, by the modern conservative sect. You furthermore fail to address the central point of the second part of my case - that Mike Huckabee fits a reasonable definition of a "good candidate" (he is well-aligned on the political spectrum with his party, and agrees with the party on most issues), and that there are other candidates in the race who do not fit that definition of a "good candidate" as well as he does, and that therefore he is not the "worst" candidate for the Republicans.
Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative. He is the worst choice for the Republican nomination.

Well I have to say that I agree completely with the first part of your argument. I went after one nominee and recieved a reply that exposed the flaws of the entire modern conservative movement. The second part however I disagreed with. Rudy is not pro-life and he is for gay-marriage. However, as much as I disagree with him personally on these issues, Rudy is a strict constructionist on the constitution. Which means he's States rights which is exactly what the United States needs to get back to. We need to stop being the United States(singular) and start being the United States(plural). Every document in American history before the Civil War read "The United States are." Every document after the Civil War read "The United States is." The last thing we need is someone to increase the Federal Government's power. However, if Huckabee gets the nomination I would still vote for him just to help stop the Democrats.
Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative. He is the worst choice for the Republican nomination.

There are two big reasons Mike Huckabee has so much support right now. 1)He is very personable. 2)He is running as an evangelical. I understand that personality plays a big part in modern politics but it shouldn't. How funny or likable someone is should not overshadow their platform or their record. Governor Huckabee's record is anything but conservative. Pardoning criminals, expanding government, and raising taxes 92 times are not conservative ideals. This brings me to my second point. You may ask why, if his record is this bad, don't more people see through the lies he tells about being a conservative? The answer: because he's running as an evangelical. Now, I'm an evangelical christian also, but the vast majority of evangelical christians now in days hear that he's running as an evangelical and they're on the bandwagon! Huckabee's the best! They never even stop to question his authenticity as a conservative. Listen, despite what liberals like to believe the Constitution was written on christian ideas. So if you're an evangelical support the candidate that supports the constitution and thus supports christian ideas. If your not a christian but a conservative support a candidate who has a consistent conservative record and not someone who's record is full of things you would expect to see from one of the Clintons.
Polearm vs Sword

In this debate, I will be arguing that spears or other polearms designed for single combat (that is, exclusive of enormous weapons such as pikes that were used defensively in large group formations) hold a massive advantage over swords. Con may either argue that, generally speaking, a sword wielder would hold the advantage in a duel, or that there would be no clear advantage. For the purposes of their argument, Con may refer to a single sword design, or speak generically.It is to be assumed that both combatants are completely equal in terms of variables such as training, skill, size, strength, etc. Round structure is as follows:Round One - Acceptance ONLYRound Two - Arguments ONLYRound Three - Arguments and/or Rebuttals Round Four - Rebuttals ONLY
A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all

Can you give me a counter argument against this one What would you think of a planet which there is no nation that can declare war on another. Where the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA where all nations are states and they elect a president. There would be no problems, which would make all fair to every land, and no need for a change, with everyone being friends and possibly speaking the same language.