BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Problem with your university's mission statement

Pro clarifies, "What it distinctly says is that RU will conduct research that will CONTRIBUTE to the social and cultural well-being of the state..." Indeed the MS does say that RU's research will contribute to various fields, but this does nothing to further Pro's argument. In R1 he explained that he will "argue that your university's mission statement falsely advertises what the school can actually do. In other words, that the statement includes claims and ambitions that are impossible to actually accomplish through a university." How has Pro proven that RU cannot *contribute* to the various fields? On the contrary, RU is among the country's most elite research universities [1]. This proves RU makes good on that portion of the MS; it is not impossible to achieve. Pro continues, "RU is claiming that its research can actually make a difference in the social and cultural well-being of the state, and not only that it produces research about the social and cultural." He claims I have not answered his question about how research can contribute; however, in noting that RU produces research I have explained how RU helps to *contribute* so I did in fact respond. Doing the research itself (which Pro never denies that RU does) is contributing. Gathering research helps garner facts and statistics for politicians, scientists, etc. Ergo in acknowledging that RU conducts research Pro subsequently acknowledges that they contribute to the various fields that their research pertains to. Pro's case rests on the notion that RU cannot guarantee that their research will contribute but that is false. It's research page describes the work that RU affiliates are working on [2]. From there are various links to different projects that describe how the research is relevant in today's society. Remember, a mission statement is nothing more than a declaration of the university's goals. Pro has the burden of explaining why these missions are impossible or promote false advertising. The site says that it's MISSION [aim] is to contribute relevant research - which it does [3]; teach NJ students - which it does; and do public service in NJ which it also does. Pro concludes by saying that since social and cultural are words that cannot be defined, RU is wrong to claim that it can contribute in those areas. This again is false. Both of those words have reliable and standard definitions [4]. Pro writes, "RU makes a claim in their MS that they have the answer to what the social and cultural well-being of the state is." This is also false. It doesn't claim to know what is right; only that research will contribute to the well-being of society because information is relevant and useful. Thanks and good luck! [1] http://www.aau.edu... [2] http://www.rutgers.edu... [3] http://www.northjersey.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Problem with your university's mission statement

In response to my question, "what research could possibly contribute to a definitive social and cultural well-being," Con admits (or implies), through silence, that research cannot contribute to a state's "social and cultural well-being." Instead of answering my question, Con states that the "type of research RU promises to do" is "social and cultural," and that "in addition to the sciences, this statement simply notes that RU does other types of research as well." Con is wrong, as the MS does not "simply note" that "RU does other types of research," but clearly states that its research actually "contributes" to the "social and cultural well-being of the state." Con leaves out the part about contributing to the well-being of the state through its research. Let me make this clear, then. The RU MS says: "conducting the cutting-edge research that contributes to the medical, environmental, social and cultural well-being of the state." In short, "conducting… research that contributes to the…. social and cultural well-being of the state." I have emphasized the important words here to show how this statement contains false advertising, as well as showing how Con manipulated the MS in the preceding argument. This statement does not say that RU will "conduct" research ABOUT the social and cultural well-being of the state, as Con argued. What it distinctly says is that RU will conduct research that will CONTRIBUTE to the social and cultural well-being of the state. The keywords are "contributes to" and "social and cultural well-being." This could not be any clearer: RU is claiming that its research can actually make a difference in the social and cultural well-being of the state, and not only that it produces research about the social and cultural. Again, Con implied that this is an unattainable goal by not answering the question I posed. And while I admit that it is possible (anything is possible) that research may "contribute" to the "social and cultural well-being," this is not something that, to use Con's words, "undoubtedly" would happen. It is a contingent effect, something that is well outside the control of the university. Finally, the reason research cannot contribute to the social and cultural "well-being" is because, in order to contribute to the "well-being" of something, the category in question – in this case, the social and cultural – must be defined before any contribution. As I stated in Round 2, the well-being of the "social and cultural" is a category that cannot be definitively defined, is unstable, and is always up for debate. RU in effect makes a claim in their MS that they have the answer to what the "social and cultural well-being of the state" is. Because that is impossible, and as I am forced to assume Con agrees with this (she remained silent when I brought it up in Round 2), we must conclude that RU's MS contains false advertising. Thank you for this excellent debate! And good luck.
Problem with your university's mission statement

Pro begins, "I argue that universities should not have any ... policy except an educational policy." This suggests that colleges aim specifically to affect other areas; however, the reality is that the main (and only) policy IS educational policy, but it's realistic to acknowledge how said education influences other aspects of society. To quote the page from the mission statement itself, "Each component of the university's mission reinforces and supports the other[s]. For example, research creates the new knowledge so necessary to support quality instruction and innovative public service." In other words, nowhere does Rutgers' MS say that it will focus on advancing public or economic policy. Instead, it mentions that the result of their efforts would undoubtedly be improvement in those areas (i.e. via their research). Remember that the research done on behalf of students does enrich their academic experience and in many cases is part of their educational requirements - including public service. We also must keep in mind that doing public service for NJ citizens is probably a part of the mission because it's those citizens who are responsible for a large part of the school's funding (tax payers). By doing public service on behalf of RU, it garners the school more money both directly from the State as well as via good advertising. That said, I'll address Pro's next comment - "[Rutgers' mission states]: that universities can somehow save the world through their research and public service." I strongly disagree. Not only is the Israeli example a far-fetched analogy, but nowhere in the MS does it say anything about trying to save anyone. In fact, the 3 components of the MS were: Providing instruction for NJ residents; conducting research; and performing public service. No aspect of that mission is political let alone attempting to save the world. Pro continues, "Think about it: what research could possibly contribute to a definitive social and cultural well-being?" The statement he's referring to pertains to the type of research RU promises to do (social and cultural). In addition to the sciences, this statement simply notes that RU does other types of research as well. He asks how teachers can fashion students with social and cultural virtues, but nowhere is that promise made or even implied in the MS. Pro concludes, "Contrary to Rutgers' mission, they cannot create citizens willing to promote particular teachers' personal view of the state's social and cultural well-being." Again, RU's statement promises no such scenario. Just because it notes that research is an important part of the university's culture (and reputation) does not mean that it says the students will conform to any particular social standards. In short, all I've seen so far is a manipulation of RU's actual mission statement - not proof that their MS contains any false advertising or unattainable goals. Back to ye, Pro.
Problem with your university's mission statement

I hoped, and still hope, that my argument would not rest on semantics, but given a profound lack of detail to Rutgers' statement, something I could not have predicted, my argument will take advantage of vague definitions. The first part of Rutgers' mission seems fine, but it is about the only thing okay with it. Rutgers' statement errs on its other two fronts. To begin, I argue that universities should not have any public policy, economic policy, or any policy except an educational policy. The dangers inherent in a more expansive notion of what universities should be doing were dramatically illustrated and proven in April 2006 when a major association of British higher education professors voted to boycott Israeli universities and refuse to do business with Israeli academics until they publicly disavowed the policies and practices of their government [1]. This case, although extreme, demonstrates the same kind of thinking blatantly expressed in Rutgers' mission: that universities can somehow save the world through their research and public service. The Rutgers' mission states: "conducting the cutting-edge research that contributes to the medical, environmental, social, and cultural well-being of the state." But in reality, all that a university can do, or does in reality do, is produce research (that is read almost exclusively by other academics) and educate students. True, it may be argued, as the note at the bottom of the mission's website suggests, that "research creates the new knowledge so necessary to support quality instruction," and that by producing research into the "social and cultural well-being of the state," professors are equipped to produce students who will promote the "social and cultural well-being of the state." But this, I contend, is clearly too ambitious. Think about it: what research could possibly contribute to a definitive "social and cultural well-being" when the category itself is undefined, unstable, and constantly being debated? Furthermore, how can teachers fashion students with social and cultural virtues? How can teachers inculcate, among their students, respect for others? University teachers, in truth, can legitimately do two things: (1) introduce students to bodies of knowledge that had not previously been part of their experience; and (2), equip those same students with the analytical skills that will enable them to engage those bodies of knowledge. Anything else that a teacher does is by chance, and should not be expressed in the university's mission. What teachers can do is introduce students to the various debates surrounding the state's social and cultural well-being, and they can even show students how to analyze and evaluate these debates. But, contrary to Rutgers' mission, they cannot create citizens willing to promote particular teachers' personal view of the state's "social and cultural well-being." 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Problem with your university's mission statement

Thanks for starting this debate, Pro. I'm assuming that it will hinge on semantics of some kind but I'm interested to see where this discussion takes us. My college has a 3-fold mission statement which can be found here [1]. Best of luck! RUTGERS UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT: * providing for the instructional needs of New Jersey's citizens through its undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education programs; * conducting the cutting-edge research that contributes to the medical, environmental, social and cultural well-being of the state, as well as aiding the economy and the state's businesses and industries; and * performing public service in support of the needs of the citizens of the state and its local, county, and state governments. [1] http://www.rutgers.edu...
Problem with your university's mission statement

I will argue that your university's mission statement falsely advertises what the school can actually do. In other words, that the statement includes claims and ambitions that are impossible to actually accomplish through a university. For this debate, my opponent will use the first round to post the name of their university, and mission statement of said university. And then, in round 2 and 3, we will present our arguments. And again, I will argue that your university's statement has ambitions that go beyond the scope of the university's potential to carry out.
The USA was not Founded on the basis of Christianity.

The first European settlers of America were the Puritans who were fleeing from the religious oppression they faced wile in England. Upon settling in the United States they then proceeded to create their own society based almost entirely on their Puritan beliefs. Years later people began to do the same thing in other future states, but some times (Rhode Island) people created societies based on other Christianity related beliefs. As for the Declaration of Independence, I am questioning why the founders would put in the phrase "by their creator" when without that text the sentence still flows and the point is still made... The following phrases are fro teh Declaration of Independence, but in the second one the phrase "by their creator" is removed... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Now in both the point is still received, but the founders still kept the phrase in their even though they clearly didnt have to. This may imply that in order to further a point the founding fathers used the reference to their "creator" aka God, to reinforce their own statements... If we look solely on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution we find some references to religion, however the founding of the country goes far greater than that. In Some states the only way you could vote in a Democratic government was if you were a white male who owned property, but ALSO was a member of the church... http://www.cliffsnotes.com... In early America you could see the powers the church and religion and on society. Churches collected taxes, church attendance was compulsory, and even admittance to the colonies was based on religious affiliation. These practices of Christian beliefs completely drove society in almost every aspect in Early America, and decades later to the birth of the USA these concepts (though not as extreme) still existed. Consider Witchcraft. Well after the USA became independent there were many trials or accusations of people being witches or as people of demonic practices that had references to what is considered "evil" in some Christian texts. If witchcraft trials were commonplace and often resulted in death sentences because they were believed to emit characteristics f what christian beliefs classified as "evil" or "satanic" then it would show how Christian ideas drove the courts themselves to judge people based on their actions compared to how people should act according to religion. Also consider the Constitution did not create the first USA. The Articles of Confederation did from 1774-1789, and they had some laws and principles of America based on religion. http://www.loc.gov... As for the Constitution, you may be surprised how much influence that religion had on crafting it, http://www.afn.org... Ill end here for now
The USA was not Founded on the basis of Christianity.

To begin I would like to say that my thesis is that the country was formed solely for political reasons and not religious reasons. For example the Declaration of Independence:﻿ "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Nowhere in that does it mention God as a REASON for the countries separation. The writer, Thomas Jefferson, as well as the majority of the intended audience was of Christian background, and he thus wrote the document is the style as such. As stated in the second verse of this document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" One must see that rather than actually FOUNDING the country on these ideas, the mention of the Creator and God are simply vessels used to prove the point trying to be made. The note struck throughout is the idea that tyranny by the British was removing the "unalienable rights" guaranteed by simply being human. To further this point I present the preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Nowhere does it mention "to do that in which the lord requires". Yes, there is a mention of the blessing of Liberty, but once again, the attendees of the Constitutional Conference were all Christian, and thus wrote as such.
The USA was not Founded on the basis of Christianity.

Premise: Whether the USA was or was not founded on the basis of Christianity. Rules: - Cite sources (reliability of sources may be discussed) - The question referres to th USA , and ONLY the USA. - Be respectful - 2 days to reply - As always, there is a burden of proof - Use a Formal Writing Style There will be three debate rounds (next one is simply an agreement/question round). Good luck!
Denmark should leave Greenland

Hello! It appears we will be debating again. Now, I want this debate to be based on fact rather than opinion. If you post an opinion, I will ignore it and give further reason to why Greenland should remain with Denmark. Got it? Let me start off by saying that Greenland is 85% ice - and is roughly three times larger than the state of Texas. That's a big chunk of ice. It also has a population of 57,714 - the 205th largest in the world. That is not a lot of people. And it shows no signs of growth: 0.03%, the 190th largest in the world. And migrants obviously won't grow the population: -5.98 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2013 est.) They are LOOSING migrants. People are moving away. Why? The economic situation is not great. The island relies almost solely on the export of seafood; it has a small amount of mining, but the profits earned from this sector are very limited. Its GDP is $2.16 billion (2011 est.), the 192 largest in the world. So how does Greenland make it? Greenland relies heavily on subsidies from Denmark. The subsidy is budgeted to be about $650 million in 2012, approximately 56% of government revenues in 2012 for the year. Obviously, if Denmark sees a need to supply Greenland with such a large subsidy, it can't be self-sufficient. The icy nation needs a bit of assistance. My argument is that Greenland wouldn't make it on it's own as an individual nation. How would it pay for healthcare, education, its military, and other such matters? Good luck and may the best win. (I would like to state that I got my facts from the CIA's World Factbook.)
Denmark should leave Greenland

Yes, but the question is: are the Danes nice enough to give independence AND provide funds for Greenland? Here is what you said earlier: "The Danish government is very indifferent to what happens in Greenland, at least in my opinion." If they don't care now when Greenland is a colony, they will never care. And that leads me to believe that Denmark would not be as friendly as imagined if Greenland independence did indeed take place. Let me change the phrase in which I said the word 'revolt'. I should have said secede. I never compared Greenland to the US occupation of Iraq; that was during wartime. The two have nearly nothing in common. "No government is in another's land to benefit the conquered. It's to benefit themselves." This is a phrase in which you said. I agree with the phrase partially. I believe that the Danes are there for their own benefit, but I believe that the Natives have gained as a result. The standard of living has increased and will continue to increase if the Danes hold onto their claim. And yes, independence doesn't have to be violent; it just depends on how important Greenland is to Denmark. And seeing as how they've held onto their claim since the 18th century, I'd say it's pretty crucial to them. I believe, quite simply, that Denmark has civilized Greenland and had made the lives of the people there significantly better, easier, and more modern. I believe that if Greenland became independent, it would have a hard time surviving in the modern economical world. More people would be disadvantaged by an independent Greenland than would benefit. That's not to say that I don't support a self-governed Danish Greenland. I believe that Greenland should govern itself but remain an entity of Denmark for financial reasons. I also thank you for this debate. I certainly learned a lot about the Greenland independence movement, and the reasonings behind both sides of this issue. May the voter decide who's reasoning is more logical.