BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs

College aid and student loans are supposed to be programs that allow any student that has the ability to succeed in a college be able to attend college. While not perfect they work for a good deal. Also most jobs that would be available would be very labor intensive since education is such a important qualification for employers as seen by people who get out of high school and have a hard time finding a job that will go somewhere. Some 14 year old would be able to find a good job that allows them the benefits that you suggest but the vast majority would be pressured by their parents and find themselves unable to balance out the rest of their day with education and extra curricular which also enables students of that age to develop skills necessary for life. Also now that i think about it 16 is when you are able to start driving transportation would be a problem for those who are younger. And of course helping out where you can with family businesses or small entrepreneurial practices like cutting lawns is fine and a good answer to your points since it's able to be flexible and not take over a young child's life.
Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs

I will respect your views but the thing about how education is more important then working, . First off , When they finally come to the age of 14 they will want and need more things to help them get through life. Also, the real issue is that what about college , the age for being able to have a job is 16 and then while your trying to get money togather for college you also have the stress of high school on you.
Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs

1. Child development is a incredibly important thing at one age something simple can be nearly impossible for someone a few years younger. The stage concerning 14 year olds is adolescence (12-19) things that develop at this time is a sense of complexity of life, merging of sensory, logical, and aesthetic perception. They develop a self image. This is also a crucial time for developing study skills and time management skills learned when given adequate education. 2. They have been abused in the past because of their inability to fully question and change their environment, child soldiers believe what they are told. They should be given every opportunity to succeed educationally and have plenty of free time to have friends and hobbies. My guess as to why 16 year olds (United State) are allowed to work was either culturally or like you said give them the ability to pitch in, in the past families relied on their kids wages to survive in times of depressions. With that said a country that provides a reasonable a safety net (welfare) should provide every family with a reasonable ability to make living wage.
Eli Manning is Overrated

Hello and sorry to not responding at the expected time, but you said that "Of course Eli isn't a "fantasy football" player." Well being a fantasy player is what some people are looking at. Being in a fantasy league, you choose how is the best for the job. In some occasions, Eli is great, but he can be the 1 TD- 3 INT kind of guy. He is inconsistent, and people know that. You found that Eli's stats "2004 Eli Manning New York Giants (Traded from San Diego) 2004 1-7 2005 11-5 (playoff appearance 0-1) 2006 8-8 (playoff appearance 0-1) PLayoffs, 1-2 (as of 1/9/08)" I remember 2006, because it was the darkest time in New York. The Giants were 6-2 and the media saw that the Giants were great, may be even win the NFC East. But, them going 2-6 hurt time hugely for barely making the 6th seed. They lost to the Eagles 23-20. But that shows Eli's inconsistent side. These stats are from www.nfl.com search: Eli Manning or http://www.nfl.com... TDS 23 INT 20 YDS 3,336 RTG 73.9 His TD TO INT ratio are nearly the same, that not right.
Eli Manning is Overrated

Hello Of course Eli isn't a "fantasy football" player. But the only thing that matters at the end of the day is winning. Here is all the quarterback drafted pre-2005 that were the 1st pick in the draft and their records. 1990 Jeff George Indianapolis Colts 1990 7-9 1991 1-15 1992 9-7 Total 17-31 Rest of career- Never did anything. Rumors of returning this year, but nothing ever happened. 1993 Drew Bledsoe New England Patriots 1993 5-11 1994 10-6 (playoff appearance Lost in opening round 1995 6-10 Rest of Career- Become a good, not great, quarterback, went 3-3 in playoffs 1998 Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts 1998 3-13 1999 13-3 (playoff appearance 0-1) 2000 10-6 (playoff appearance 0-1) Rest of Career- Well, one of the greatest ever 1999 Tim Couch Cleveland Browns 1999 3-12 2000 3-12 2001 7-9 Rest of Career- Who? Tim Couch? 2001 Michael Vick Atlanta Falcons 2001 Did not play 2002 9-6-1 (playoff appearance 1-1) 2003 3-1 (Hurt most of year) Rest of Career- Was looking to become a good or even great starter but then the dog fights came 2002 David Carr Houston Texans 2002 4-12 2003 5-11 2004 7-9 Never looked good now is a backup in Carolina 2003 Carson Palmer Cincinnati Bengals 2003 Did not play 2004 8-8 2005 11-5 (playoff appearance 0-1) Top Tier quarterback now, surrounded by a bad team, never did anything in the playoffs 2004 Eli Manning New York Giants (Traded from San Diego) 2004 1-7 2005 11-5 (playoff appearance 0-1) 2006 8-8 (playoff appearance 0-1) PLayoffs, 1-2 (as of 1/9/08) What can we get from this? In his first three years, had second best record, tied for most playoff appearance. Him and Drew Bledsoe, only quarterback in top 5 biggest media cities. Of the QB's with the 1st pick he is no doubt the 3rd maybe even 2nd best since 1990. To respond to the last paragraph, he has the defense, the running game (a duel threat with Jacobs and Bradshaw), he'll be consistent. The only question is if he'll turn the ball over. Messed around on NFL.com with the standings etc.
Eli Manning is Overrated

I think that Eli Manning is overrated. What does ONE playoff win prove? Unless it was his first start then its completely useless. Please in the first two playoff games, Eli was 0-2, 2-4 T.D:INT ratio, and both those times they were in wild card because they slipped at the second half (Last 8 games). He is a inconsistent QB and he has horrible to avarage stats. Here are his stats for his short career (Passing) Year Team G G Att Comp Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD TD% Int Int% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck SckY Rate 2007 New York Giants 16 529 297 56.1 33.1 3,336 6.3 208.5 23 4.3 20 3.8 60T 36 6 27 217 73.9 2006 New York Giants 16 522 301 57.7 32.6 3,244 6.2 202.8 24 4.6 18 3.4 55T 33 8 25 186 77.0 2005 New York Giants 16 557 294 52.8 34.8 3,762 6.8 235.1 24 4.3 17 3.1 78T 49 8 28 184 75.9 2004 New York Giants 9 197 95 48.2 21.9 1,043 5.3 115.9 6 3.0 9 4.6 52 11 4 13 83 55.4 TOTAL 57 1,805 987 54.7 31.7 11,385 6.3 199.7 77 4.3 64 3.5 78 129 26 93 670 73.4 See overall he average player and his TD:INT ratio is 77:64, not great and to play in the NFC, come on you need to 1) Not turnover the ball (INT'S, Fumbles,etc.), 2) You need a running attack, 3) Need a consistent QB or QB'S and 4) Need a big Defense. The Giants have 1 out of the four (The D) They will lose to the Cowboys due to the 3 out of the four reasons. Info: http://www.nfl.com...
Eli Manning is Overrated

Hello I've been a Giants fan since as long as I can remember (2000 Super Bowl). I remember how good it felt when we got Eli and today when he won his first playoff game. There has been a lot of talk about how he's overrated, that is just false. Since Eli was a full time starter in 2005, he has -been to the playoffs every year (as of 1/6/08 1-2 rec.) -other teams to do that are the Seahawks, Colts, and Pats -won a division title in 2nd year -started every game since first start -other QB's to do that Farve, Manning, Brady Variables Eli has played threw- -Last 2 years, other player distractions -Injury prone defense -Receivers drop balls -Toughest media in the world, New York City -Swirling wind in the Meadowlands -Bad Offensive Lines I will let my opponent make their case, before I get into detail
Eli Manning is Overrated

Well here's a poll votes (361 votes by the NFL Players) Terrell Owens, Cowboys. .. ..10% Brian Urlacher, Bears. .. ..8% Ray Lewis, Ravens. .. ..7% Michael Vick, Falcons. .. ..7% Eli Manning, Giants. .. ..4% Keyshawn Johnson, Panthers. .. ..4% Peyton Manning, Colts. .. ..4% Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers. .. ..3% Charles Woodson, Packers. .. ..3% Warren Sapp, Raiders. .. ..3% . http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Well in this poll Eli is the 5th most overrates player in the league thus making him the most overrated QB. You said that "Hmm did he lose in the wild card round this year? Did he lose in the divisional round yet? " oh come on that is this year, the career of Eli is really that he overall not a "win the big game QB. " You also said that "In his last 3 games, it's 6:1, not to shaby. " 3 oh really THREE GAMES. You have to look at the big picture. He is still the QB UP-DOWN type guy he shows his streak to Green Bay in the NFC Championship, but really not that GREAT. He's good but not great.
Eli Manning is Overrated

Hello Thank you for debating, and I love how you made your argument after the Giants win there 2nd straight playoff game. Your poll is completely flawed. There are only 20 voters allowed, and they are fans. I won't accept it until it has 5,000 plus fans, or a good amount of press and only press voter. Anyways, he only got 4/20 votes. How many actually did there research. Also, of thhe players in the poll he's the only one left. Well, you say, "Do you feel that people can brag that their team made the playoff and loses the wild card round?" Hmm did he lose in the wild card round this year? Did he lose in the divisional round yet? Think about that first. If my team had a QB that had a 10:15 TD-int ratio he wouldn't be the starter. But Eli doesn't have one as you said in your earlier arguments. In his last 3 games, it's 6:1, not to shaby.
Eli Manning is Overrated

Hello You to me that " So what if he has a bad TD TO rating. He has lead his team to the playoffs 3 straight years." If he has a horrible TD:INT ratio, even a running game won't help. If your team was down 24-17 with 2:00 left and 1 TO (Timeout) in the 4th quarter, you expect pass, not run, but if the QB has a horrible ratio like 10:15 (TD:INT) your team has little hope. Do you feel that people can brag that their team made the playoff and loses the wild card round? That is wrong. Here is a poll of the most overrated QB'S in the game. View Poll Results: Who is the most overrated QB in the NFL? Vince Young 8 42.11% Derek Anderson 1 5.26% Ben Roethlisberger 2 10.53% Eli Manning 4 21.05% Jeff Garcia 1 5.26% Marc Bulger 2 10.53% Tony Romo 1 5.26% http://www.footballboards.com...
Eli Manning is Overrated

Hello Your argument never said how the facts proved he is overrated. So what if he has a bad TD TO rating. He has lead his team to the playoffs 3 straight years. Only 3 other QB's have longer playoff appearance streaks. In 2006, that was a good team, but in the 2nd half of the year, the defense got beat up and hurt bad. That is something he couldn't control. PLease give facts or comparisons that prove he is overrated.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Like I had said before this is not a debate on if af are good or not it is if we should have this mandate or if it should just be at a later date. Yes they are cleaner and cheaper(right away). In a year you will spend over $600 more on ethanol. Think is that money you want to spent on a fuel? Pulse there is not just 1 fuel. There is an alternative fuel called hydrogen, biodeasle, and even electricity. This would be a suicide mission for the government to get gas stations all over the U.S. To get pumps up for all these af. With you attacking the family owned gas stations. This right away would not kill the economy. Yes they would not all go under right away. In the long run this would put us right back in another depression. Just think of the family it could hurt. Is this something you even thought about? What if your family owned it how would you feel? This is why we need to wait and make the mandate set at 2050 or higher.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

While I do accept that these mandates were "flawed", I must point out that this resolution is unrelated to these health and environment mandates. This is a mandate on transportation and, therefore, can be expected to have different results. Also, while it is true we will probably run out of oil by 2029, we currently have technology available to put this resolution into action. Ethonal is already used. All we are doing with this resolution is selling ONLY cars powered with alternative fuel. If we already have ethanol powered cars on the road, and the resolution gives us 31 years to put into action, then it is a very reasonable claim to say that this resolution should be put into effect. Also, this "family owned gas station" matter is what one would call the "Red Herring Falacie". My oponent has taken an example that means very little in the grand scheme of things and used it as an argument for this case, when in reality, It does not matter. Yes, family owned gas stations may go bankrupt, but by continuing to rely on petroleum based fuels, our economy will suffer a great deal more, seeing as the prices of these fuels is inconstant. The recent drop in prices means we are about to reach peak oil and that we need change. Alternative fuels are cleaner and cheaper, so this is a win-win situation for the US. Since I agreed to give my oponent the closing argument, this is my last stand on the matter. I hope the voters will see my side of this debate and vote Pro. Thank you for this debate.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

If you are saying that the government mandate would be the quickest, most efficient way to get our country going did you even read the websites? The sites showed of mandates that were not a good money spending idea. 2040 is to soon. That means that we need an alternative fuel at every gas pump so it is convenient for everyone with a af car. That means every fuel pump would need more than one af pump. This would drive all the family owned gas stations would go bankrupt. This in return killing our already downed economy.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

First the mandate is by 2040 so all I have to do is prove that is not a reasonable deadline. I would also like to point out that my opponent already said that right now it is predicted we will run out of oil by 2030, think if we have a baby born every hour for the year of 2009 that would be 8,736 new babies and drivers by the year of 2026 4 years before we are suppose to run out of oil. So we will run out sooner. Second I would like to point out that mandates will usually bring themselves to their own demise. Here are 3 mandates that have failed. . http://www.pnhp.org... . http://www.catf.us... . http://www.aicgs.org... These are only 3 if they have failed then what good would it do to spend more money to get a mandate that will come down on itself. All of your points are worthless because yes I and a lot of other people on my HS debate team agree that yes alternative fuels are good. All we are debating that 2040 is a good year for this mandate or if we should even have it. This is why I think for a con vote.
Classroom atmosphere is only the first need to ignite the mind for better learning.

Thank you Akshat007 for your argument. I am however obliged to say and bring it to your attention that you have not read my argument correctly. Thus my argument for round three will be in the light of my earlier argument in round two. Let me begin my argument. The fact on Archimedes, Thomas Alva Edison: Read my argument carefully. I never stated that they are lucky to get an exceptional mind. My point was they had got a mind that urged to study and learn. They had the thirst for knowledge. My context of they been lucky only came when I went out to refer that their urge to learn never died off. For that reason only Archimedes even lost his life. Thus they never lost their urge. In terms of the general, who do not get a classroom atmosphere, they lose their urge to learn as they soon becomes self-satisfied with their little learning as they do not know what all is there to learn. A classroom atmosphere however sets a certain syllabus for a certain period of time. Then again a related but a new syllabus is presented for a certain period of time. Thus studies are divided systematically and made easy. This not only keeps the urge but also do not let the students be self-satisfied. Thus their mind ignites for better learning as the urge is always kept alive. The fact on ‘only’: My answer is still a yes. Classroom atmosphere is the only first need to ignite our mind for better studies. The people who do not get an opportunity to study do survive but at what condition? Can they blossom in the future? I believe even you know the reality. Without formal education you can just silently look as the is generation running on while you can never be a part of it. Even if they can make a living after living in the harsh condition is it like living in the luxury that we live in. And moreover I think you going out of the topic. It is on classroom atmosphere and not whether the people who did not get formal education can survive or not? Secondly you can only ignite your mind for better learning when you first have the desire to learn. I have accepted that this desire is required. But the debate is on the fact whether classroom atmosphere is the only first need for better learning. If you first have the desire to learn then the answer will always be yes. That is because a classroom atmosphere can give: Healthy competition Test and project to know your capability and understanding power A person to guide Impose self-discipline Systematic studies Easy flow of study on related topics With these I end my argument as I believe I have answered all your questions and in conclusion I am safely drawing that classroom atmosphere is the ‘only’ first need to ignite our mind for better learning.
Classroom atmosphere is only the first need to ignite the mind for better learning.

As you described people like Archimedes, Thomas Alva Edison was lucky to get exception mind..I don't agree..its on us how we take the matter.....God Have not distinguish us into different minds as we do!! Besides this...I would like to turn your attention to word 'only' . Its a question that classroom is only the first need we student want...I don't think so...people who doesn't get opportunity to study for certain reasons..can't they live in this modern era..we can't say that classroom atmosphere is only the first need for better learning....student who don't want read will not read even if they have given all the faculties So after reading this u can raise up a question...why I go to school?? I'm not telling that classroom doesn't make any impact on us off curse it is but I also can't say it is the most important or say first 'only' need we want.
Classroom atmosphere is only the first need to ignite the mind for better learning.

Desire undoubtedly is the first step towards learning. But desire alone is not sufficient to ignite our mind for better learning as desire to learn may be able to quench your thirst for learning momentarily but to sustain such learning one need to have a structure of discipline and a systematic way of study which only a classroom ambiance can provide. Students need to know a little about everything to use it in future. Students also need to excel on one topic over which we have our capability Classroom systematically and in a disciplinary manner makes students learn everything. If you notice in a classroom students study little by little. Thus they cope up on everything. Now let us come to the matter which they like. Let"s say a student loves history. If he/she did not study in a classroom atmosphere he/she would one day learn some historical event, then another day he/she would learn something irrelevant to his/her previous day"s study. Let us think he/she does learn something relevant. Who gives the assurance that he/she understood it? Let us take the condition where he studies something relevant as well as understand it, but he may not think it is necessary research upon it. Research is a very important part of a student"s studies or more for a "better learning". Classroom helps a student achieve it in two ways. First students see competitors in front of them and second students are asked to do projects or their tests are. Let me explain my two points. First my meaning to "competitors" means the classroom mates around a student. Now everyone knows something better in a certain topic. So a student comes to know from them. Then that student have the feel to know more and take the role of the "teacher" and show that he/she knows like them or maybe he/she knows more than them. Everyone always wants to be in the center of attention. Thus he/she research upon the matter they study. Thus students have a better learning as healthy competition continue on and on. Next projects give us the way to see to it that we learn something worthwhile that will influence our main studies. Test on the other hand says how well we know something. While people who learn without a classroom atmosphere may be confident that they know a lot, because they do not know how much they should study, and thus finally come to know very little. So classroom atmosphere is very much needed. Even it imbibes a self- discipline in a student which again ignites our mind for better learning. As for your example of Archimedes, Thomas Elva Edison and many others this are exception of those who are also lucky. They are lucky in the sense that their urge to learn never gave up. Comparing with the general they are one out of a thousand or maybe a million. Most people have the desire but without the classroom atmosphere their desires may be finished at any moment. So to sum up once more classroom atmosphere is the first need to ignite our mind for better studies.
Classroom atmosphere is only the first need to ignite the mind for better learning.

As you said it is the first need..then I like to tell you that there are still many children who doesn't get an opportunity to study in the class and mix up with the classroom atmosphere but still they shine in their life!! Success is in the fingertip man, the only requirement is the desire to learn.. In early days...there is really the classroom where people read..I don't think so but they still become famous..like Thomas Elva Edison,Archimedes and many more!!
Classroom atmosphere is only the first need to ignite the mind for better learning.

As per your question it is. Classroom is a place confined only for studies. There are no other distraction and students can focus only in one subject at a time. Then a classroom is also a place where you come across different ideas which are important. That gives students knowledge. That lets you see from others prospective. Students have new experience. That will in future allow student's to have a better decision regarding everything. From Fantasy students come to Reality. To sum up everything the answer is and will always be yes.