BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All I know, is that I know nothing.

According to Dictionary.com, education is the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life, and knowledge is defined as the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? (Apology, 29d-30a) I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person. (Apology, 30a-b) Socrates learned rhetoric from Aspasia of Miletus, the lover of Pericles (Plato, Menexenus), erotic from the priestess Diotima of Mantinea (Plato, Symposium), and music from teacher Connus. He was acquainted with the doctrines of Parmenides, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, and the atomists. He was widely known for his intellectual powers even before he was 40. Socrates is known for creating Socratic irony and the Socratic Method (elenchus). He taught numerous amounts of influential students like Aristotle, Xenophon, and Plato who later become great philosophers themselves. For him to truly not know that he knew nothing is a false statement. It is not that Socrates truly didn't know anything, but because he used the Socratic Method he led the opposition to contradict with himself, which strengthened Socrates own point. The statement "All I know is that I know nothing" is a technique that was used to strengthen his point to prove that he is in fact wiser, but the statement itself is a false statement. Rather, because he was wise, he said he knew nothing, which makes "all I know is that I know nothing" a false statement. (Note: Opposite to what WarrenV has suggested to voters, we are not debating about the level of each voter's individual level of knowledge, which can vary widely. We are talking about Socrates and Socrates' level of knowledge).
All I know, is that I know nothing.

First: I am blissfully aware that Socrates educated a great number of people, the most obvious and important one Plato (Important, because Socrates never wrote down his 'work'. Everything we have learnt from Socrates is from what Plato has wrote). So you didn't need to inform me of this. Second: In regards to the information you mentioned. I must point out again that Socrates EDUCATED these important philosophical figures, he did not give them knowledge. It is impossible to be given knowledge, you must experience it for yourself (I have already given a definition of knowledge, which included the word 'experience).A good way of viewing experiences, can be comparing them to ideas and impressions. An Impression (experience) such as burning your finger will leave an idea (thought) in your head of what it feels like to burn your finger. It is impossible for someone to place an experience/impression in your mind - technology is not that advanced. Third: This is an addition. You may try to contradict me for what I just said about Impression > Experience = Knowledge! Well, sorry to disappoint you. Let's take an apple for example - you experience biting into an apple, it tastes sweet and juicy, applying this to the theory above would suggest that you have a lasting impression of an apple. Wrong. From biting into 1 apple, that doesn't mean you can apply it to all apples - some are sweet, others are sour and some are even bland. This shows that to gain knowledge, you need experience (Impressions) and 1 impression/experience isn't enough to gain knowledge. Fourth: "The impreciseness of "All I know that I know nothing" stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain thing". Sort of proving my point there. One cannot know anything with absolute certainty.. That can basically be translated to "One does not have absolute knowledge". What is absolute knowledge? You can surely only have 100% knowledge of something...absolute knowledge cannot exist. You either have enough experiences of a situation to create Knowledge (which is impossible) or you only have a theory. Let us take for an example Thomas Edison. He tested over 2,000 or 20,000 (I am unsure) light-bulbs in order to create the first working one. Do we have any idea of how to create energy (the laws of physics says it's impossible - but some 'items' do prove the laws of physics incorrect e.g. Bees shouldn't be able to fly according to physics)? No we don't - we're not even sure if it's possible. Therefore we cannot have Knowledge. Finally: I have already explained the difference between being wise (educated) and having knowledge, so there is no point in me re-contradicting your final point. That was interesting debate I had. Good luck in my opponents final argument and in the voting session. Remember 1 thing before voting; Ask yourself, what do I actually know ? (Have knowledge about).
In order to reduce unemployment and increase GDP, counterfieters should not be prosecuted

Thanks to my opponent for the swift reply. First off, CON states that "If you could make your money at home smoking a cigar and printing money would you work? Unemployment would go up" First off, unemployment is defined as those searching for a job. If I'm not actively searching for a job, I'm not unemployed, regardless If I have a job or not. Second off, you assume that all persons would have the knowledge and capital necessary to print money. This is not necessarily true. Those unable to master the art of counterfeiting would work for a living. My opponent does not refute my arguments about sticky wages. His arguments are "If it is about money, don't take those jobs", "I dont think this has anything to do with some printing off money.", and "I'm not getting why this is important ". These statements don't argue anything. Extend arguments on sticky wages and prices. Wages and prices can remain the same even with a growth in the money supply. Ironically, my opponent then states "No. If Everyone gets more money why would you keep prices low? This is a Capitalistic society." This was the entire reason I wrote Point #1. I specifically stated why businesses will keep prices low even with an increase with the money supply. I stated that prices were sticky, or difficult to change. My opponent ironically asked "I'm not getting why this is important". My point was that prices remain the same due to sticky wages. Due to the equation MV = PY, if prices don't change in proportion to the money supply, then GDP increases. It's basic mathematics. My opponent then tries to explain the limits of GDP. That's nice. However, my arguments is to prove that counterfeiting will increased GDP. The limits of GDP do not matter in this context. Any arguments stating the limits of GDP is a distraction and a red herring. My opponent has not responded to the following arguments: -The Philips Curve provides empirical evidence that demonstrates that as inflation increases unemployment decreases. I look forward to the next round. Thank you.
Why Medicinal Marijuana should be legal

First you say "Marijuana addiction is rare" That's true and 6%-10% of people become addicted to it. However you can't get high on it because of the lack of THC. So getting addicted to medical marijuana is extremely unlikely. Also Marijuana doesn't kill you unlike alcohol. They found in a study it takes about 20,000 to 40,000 times what most people use at once to kill you. Alcohol only takes about 10 times more then most use at once. Aside from that marijuana is used by doctors to treat seizures, crohn's disease, Nausea from chemo patients, and many many more things. In fact there was one story about a child who had almost 200 seizures a day. Nothing the doctors gave him worked except medicinal marijuana. Would you have that kid and thousand like him still go through there major medical issues just because you personally don't think they should they should be allowed to. As for the rest of your argument it's based on the false notion that medical marijuana is addictive which it isn't I'll leave links at the end of this argument. Maybe next time you will do a five second Google search because if you did you would know medical marijuana isn't addictive. Also link your source for your numbers. Sources . http://www.drugabuse.gov... (Recreational marijuana addiction rates) . http://www.leafscience.com... (difference between medical and street marijuana) . http://www.americanscientist.org... (lethal drug study) . http://www.webmd.com... (medical marijuana uses)
Why Medicinal Marijuana should be legal

Marijuana addiction is rare but very real. Medicinal marijuana can turn into very serious thing, including that it is addictive for first users. Marijuana is as addictive as alcohol. Approximately 10% of the entire world is addicted to marijuana. Imagine the entire world and 10% of that that is probably half of a quarter. That means 90% of people can use it recreationally. But for the other 10%, marijuana is not a harmless herb. They will have difficulty controlling their use, and they will continue to use even though it has negative consequences to their life. Every day people enter rehab programs or go to a 12 step group to deal with their marijuana addiction. One study looked at 2,446 young adults between the ages of 14-24, and followed them for a period of 4 years. Approximately 10% met the criteria for marijuana addiction. 17% experienced withdrawal when they stopped using, 14% had difficulty controlling their use, and 13% continued to use even though they had health problems due to their marijuana use. A person can take medicinal marijuana about 4 times and they"ll already be addicted. Craving marijuana can lead to decreased appetite, sleep difficulty and weight loss. Reliably changed across the smoking and fasting phases. Aggression, anger, irritability, restlessness and strange dreams increased significantly during one fasting phase, but not the other. In our opinion medicinal marijuana can ruin someone"s life, they started smoking marijuana and ended up is a difficult situation that they tried to stop but eventually couldn't"t.
Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian.

I explicitly specified in the instructions that rebuttals were suppose to be in the 3rd round and 4th round. The 2nd round was solely for main arguments without rebuttals. 1. Since when was my argument implying everyone to become a vegetarian? This debate is simply focused on how being a vegetarian helps the environment more than not being a vegetarian. -These implications in your argument, " If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat (Daniel_B)", are irrelevant to the topic. Besides, arguably if we just slaughtered a good portion of the populations of livestock and processed the meat without breeding more livestock, then that would not be an issue at all. 2. What are these "many ways" that you are referring to that would actually significantly help more so than lowering the water supply for livestock farming? -"As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians." California already has implemented fairly strict regulations now concerning private and public water usage because of the drought, so people are less likely to use as much. However, those policies are an insignificant aid to lowering water usage because of the amount of water that I discussed earlier that is used per pound of beef. 3. Your argument that vegetarians will eat unhealthy food is irrelevant because we are discussing the environment in this debate.-"And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they"re unlikely to reap many health benefits (Daniel_B)". This is indeed irrelevant because as the topic statement says, "helps the environment more", not people more. 4. Your argument that vegetarians will have a lower nutrient intake is irrelevant because again, we are discussing the environment in this debate.-"Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12 (Daniel_B)". Besides, certain types of meat have a high amount of fat and eating this meat too often can create a higher chance in cardiac diseases. Restating the main issue at hand though, the concern in this debate is over the environment and not people's diets. There are many other angles of arguments that could have been made, think carefully in your next input for this debate.
Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian.

While your points are completely valid you are forgetting one major fact, The overpopulation of animals: Specific species of animals, such as cows need to be killed off to keep the population at a healthy level. If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat. You state 25% of the earth is used for grazing, and argue that is too much? Imagine if people were vegetarians,stopped eating grazing animals, and the animals were set free. This would cause a huge amount of the grass and healthy lands such as the rain forest to be torn down due to uncontrolled species. It is much less space consuming to have a tightly packed group of animals then a spaced out one. As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians. Finally Humans are part of the environment too, many vegetarians eat LESS healthy then non-vegetarians. "And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they"re unlikely to reap many health benefits " after all, there"s no meat in ice cream, potato chips, or fudge brownies! It"s certainly possible to be a vegetarian and still consume large quantities of high-fat, high-sugar empty calories. Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12. Athletes, children and pregnant females are particularly at risk as their nutrient needs are especially high. Vegans (who eat no animal products of any type) especially need to supplement their vitamin B12 intake. Poor meal-planning, illness, stress and the excessive use of supplements can also cause problems. It's therefore wise to seek professional advice on your dietary needs before making the switch to vegetarianism." ~Calorie King Sources: http://www.vegetariantimes.com... http://www.calorieking.com...
Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian.

Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More Than not Being a Vegetarian. Vegetarian: "the exclusion of meat (In the context of this debate: non-human animal meat)...from the diet" Environment: "The natural world, as a whole" Helps: " To contribute to the...improvement of" Being (state of being/verb) More: "a greater... degree" (debatable) 1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance. 2nd round: Main arguments 3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points 4th round: Rebuttals/counters/final points Rules: - No abuse of semantics. (This is standard since I gave definitions) -No trolling. - A forfeit is an automatic loss. -Cite sources. Sources: -http://dictionary.reference.com... -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -https://search.yahoo.com... -http://www.thefreedictionary.com... -http://grammar.about.com...
Video gaming is good for Brain

"Debating... Is harmful to your brain," Thank you for the reminder, but I didn't need it, and that is not what we are debating about. And the debate title is "Video gaming is good for brain." An addiction is a psychological dependence on something, which means your brain is relying on it. I showed how addictive video games are and ways in which they affect our brains and that they do not need to be graphic to be harmful. I will now show why radiation is harmful to the brain. Radiation can come from screens and is harmful to our health. -http://www.goodhealthinfo.net... Does the educational value of some games outweigh that harm? I think not. There are other ways to learn things, and it is important to have patience. Reading paper books is a much better way to learn what you can learn from a video game because there is no radiation coming from a paper book. Conclusion: we do not need video games to learn, they can hurt us in more ways than one, and they are not good for your brain.
Video gaming is good for Brain

We are debating on its effect on brain but Addiction is just a behaviour and being a violence is a nature but still I am giving my arguments Addiction is the continued repetition of a behaviour which can include any thing , and not only limited to drug abuse and video gaming. It may be a food addiction, exercise addiction, and many other addiction. As we know, coding and programming are good for brain but some people have a addiction of it, they like doing coding and programming and all time they were busy with their coding and programming stuffs, this doesn't mean that coding is harmful for brain or solving maths problem and doing research on particular topics may consider as addiction. Same logic applicable to video games. It may be some of video games is violent but there are many other video games which are considered as good for brain and really they are good. And at last, according to your arguments debating is also an addiction therefore it is harmful for your brain.
Video gaming is good for Brain

You argued that playing video games increases our concentration, hand-eye coordination, etc. But do these benefits outweigh the many dangers of playing video games? According to http://katiecouric.com..., you can literally become more addicted to video games than the drug heroine, and the merciless killing explained in violent video games can single-handedly turn a person into a ruthless homicide. And with video game addiction and video games by themselves comes many more psychological dangers proven here: http://m.youtube.com... www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBeyjeoisw Sorry the actual videos are not in my argument. I don't know how to post them in arguments like that yet.
Video gaming is good for Brain

Playing video games increases our: 1. Concentration. 2. Quick responses of Brain. 3. High level thinking. 4. Decision making, Strategy and management. 5. Memory of brain, Skills and creativity of brain. 6. Coordination between our eye and fingers. 7. Development in reading and sudden situational Awareness. 8. Improvement in multiple tasks doing at same time. 9. Confidence, hard work to achieve goal. 10. And at last, Playing video games gives relief to our brain , reduces the stress of brain and tension as it is played as Entertainment. Also these is proved by many Scientists and Psychologists that playing video games have many benefits. It is good for brain development in many way, as playing video games is exercise which can build brain muscles, enhance the concentration of Brain. And also many other reasons given by Scientists and Psychologists. Here one of the link: http://backwardmessages.wordpress.com...
George Bush is an idiot

Understand that I am Con in this debate. In one of the Forum threads, http://www.debate.org... ddo member emmalmalcolm made the claim "Bush is actually an idiot. Obama is a brilliant lawyer, professor, speaker and author. You can disagree with his policy but that's just fact." The claim is common. I challenged emmalmalcolm to defend the claim, but emmalmalcolm, despite having been on the site, let the challenge expire. So now I am opening the challenge to anyone who believes they can make the case. The claim being so apparently outrageous, it is appropriate to require that Pro bear the burden of proof and make a case as to why that claim is true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So we each have equal space to debate, I will not present any argument in this opening statement, and Pro agrees to pass in the final half of R4. To get us started, a standard dictionary definition of "idiot" is: Idiot: 1 usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation 2 : a foolish or stupid person http://www.merriam-webster.com... As emmalmalcolm claimed in her forum assertion, it is not about differences in policy, it is about mental capacity. I challenge anyone to make a case, and look forward to the debate.
No one died at Sandy hook

I mean no disrespect, and I hope to keep this debate free of any personal feelings, As questions should be allowed in a free world, as freedom of speech, the fact that i can debate that no one did die shows this and I hope this important issue can be resolved, as the real criminals are the people that orchestrated this along with many other false flag events as far back ask JFK possibly further.False flags are real.http://www.washingtonsblog.com...Adam lanzas's death certificate In this official document, Adam Lanza is shown to have died the day before the shooting. Now I know like the next person that if our government was in charge of the desert, there would be a shortage of sand, but this is too bit of a coincidence. Either he was killed by the ones responsible, or someone was leaving a clue. Crisis actorsIt will be shown that a few people, who were at Sandy hook were also at several other false flags in recent history, or were blatantly acting as shown here. http://www.whale.to... Here is the same crisis actor who was supposedly a former classmate of the alleged Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza; who now is the sister of James Foley who was supposedly beheaded on the fake video. This lady cried so well she has a permanent career with the crisis crowd. s://healthrangerupdate.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />Someone should've let Robbie Parker know he's supposed to be in character at all times, the giggles, asking if he was just suppose to read from the paper, and "theater preperation" are not consistent with a father, who lost a child hours before.https://youtu.be...There is a lot of money in it.http://www.crisiscast.com...They pass a law protecting themselves.http://thomas.loc.gov...:The school was demolished secretly and only 2 months after the massacre so any further evidence is conveniently destroyed.http://heavy.com...DrillsMost false flags if not all, have government drills at or around the site on the same day.http://www.ct.gov...Kids alivehttps://youtu.be... http://articles.courant.com...; rip Web pages made Before the incident.http://fellowshipoftheminds.com...
Yo Momma jokes

Yo mama is so nasty, her crabs use the string of her tampon as a bungee chord. Yo mama so nasty, she has more clap then a auditorium. Yo mama is so ugly, Shrek would not even tap that. Yo mama is so skinny, she uses a Cheerio is a hula hoop. Yo mama is so ugly that Adalia Rose sued her.