BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Student's have to think how they study.

Attending university is probably the biggest decision most young people make for themselves, and most think very deeply about it. Students drop out of university for many reasons – often personal or emotional. If anything, adding a huge fee to the process of starting university would just increase the pressure on students and make any problems worse. Also, it is not clear that what makes money is necessarily the same as what is ‘good for society’. Nursing is very important for example, but very poorly paid compared to ‘marketing’. Do we really want to direct people away from such important jobs? And many subjects such as art may not be profitable, but still possess great cultural value which is important in other ways.
Scrapping tuition fees could mean moving to a graduate tax where students do not need to pay anything up front.

A graduate tax would be a good way to potentially give universities more than they get from the current fees while getting rid of tuition fees. The contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. This would help to make the cost fairer as it would depend on what you got out of their degree. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay £125 per month. Over 20 years that could amount to £30,000.[[Shepard Jessica "Student leaders call for graduate tax to replace tuition fees: Graduates would contribute to a national tax out of their monthly salary over a twenty year period" Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/10/nus-tuition-fees-graduate-tax Accessed 10.06.09]]. Although that sum is high even over the course of 20 years but show the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money instead of universities rising their fares. The graduate tax would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year so if a graduate finds him or herself out of work or in a low paid job they would not need to pay.
It is well known that the ‘education’ is often only a small part of the university experience.

Universities have only limited control over how their students spend their spare time. Provided that they give their students a high quality education, and only award degrees to those who deserve it then they are doing their job properly. Also, the idea that the taxpayer is generously funding students is misleading. Most students receive most of their income from loans (which have to be paid back), and many students live in situations of quite serious poverty. Those that are lucky enough to have spare money often earn this by having a part-time job whilst studying. If they choose to spend their own money on fun and socialising, that is none of our business.
debt unites students

Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more "My Dad is richer than your Dad" bullying.
No debt

University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.
Student's have to think how they study.

Making students think about the cost of their education would make them think harder about what and how they study. Many students would wait until they were ready for university, rather than join straight after school because they have no better plans. This is why so many students drop out of university quickly (often wasting taxpayers’ money). It would also mean that students chose to study subjects that were actually profitable for them, and useful for society (e.g. Medicine or Engineering) – rather than just interesting or fun for them (e.g. Art History, or Film Making) but of no practical use to society when they graduate.
Balanced society.

Students from families on low incomes are eligable for a grant and are able to recieve EMA (Eduaction Maintenance Allowance) - a fixed sum of money given to poorer students to help pay for books etc. The government has made it so the poor can go but the rich have to pay. Student loans available to richer students are much less than those given to poorer families and although poorer students will have to repay more at the end of their degree, middle class parents are expected to provide the extra money needed by their student children - not always possible. The parents of students who come from richer backgrounds undeniably pay higher tax rates than those from poorer backgrounds which goes towards the less wealthy students grants and bursaries but not towards their own children. why should they have to pay twice?
It is well known that the ‘education’ is often only a small part of the university experience.

It is well known that the ‘education’ is often only a small part of the university experience. Students spend far too much time and money drinking, partying and wasting time. Even if there is an argument for funding higher education itself (which we doubt) then it is very hard to justify why low income workers should pay taxes to support the ‘student lifesyle’ of people who attend universities. As long as students don’t pay, or understand, the full cost of their tuition, they are more likely to take it for granted and be wasteful as they currently do.
Somebody has to pay

Somebody has to pay for free education. If students in this country get a free education than taxes must go up. As a country, we cannot afford to give away education. If we do, this would mean that people who do not have kids, do not have kids in college, or do not have kids who want to go to college must pay for other families who have kids in the college system. In Denmark, education is free, but along with education comes a total income tax of 35.66% of a persons wage. In the United States, where 1 in 7 people live in poverty, this system will not work. When people are struggling just to survive, they should not be put into a situation where they must pay for a great opportunity for someone else. People cannot afford to pay higher taxes, even if it means a free education.
University education helps society

I'll begin by saying that not everybody wants a university degree, therefore not everybody needs a university degree. Granted that if the state did not educate its people then we would have some serious problems, however with education up to college level being free, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that someone over the age of 18 should have to pay for an extension on their education. In order for a society to function properly, you need more than every man, woman and child being trained to be the next Tony Blair, the next hot shot lawyer or the next 'Topgun' doctor. You need people with vocational qualifications and trade skills, of which someone would not attain at a university or learn in a university course. It is also important to note that by making university free, you increase the amount of people attending university devaluing the worth of the actual degree. In order for a state to fund free degrees for all would be to rise tax, because free education is never free, and someone needs to foot the bill. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland etc have very high taxation at around 40-50% per year per income. Raising taxes in the UK during a time of recession would be damaging and counter-productive and ultimately would not help society.
There are already more than enough people going to university.

It is not clear that ‘too many people’ go to universities. The problem of unemployment is as much to do with businesses and the economy as education. Also, using fees to put people off applying to university is a clumsy and unfair method. Rather than help to decide who ‘should’ go to university, it means that particular types of people – normally those from low-income or poor backgrounds – are less able or likely to go. At the same time more well-off students who can afford to study can continue to apply regardless. This takes us back to the bad old days where your wealth decided your chance of success in life. Individuals should be the ones who decide if they go to university – not the Government, and not how much money their parents earn.
Balanced society.

The rich should have to pay because it is the money they get, in large part, from the poor that allows them such a priveleged position. Where else would the money come from? Let us also not forget that the poor also pay taxes. If it was not so a very definite elite class would emerge, becoming virtually impenetrable for all without. The facilitation of a path to higher education for lower income students is vital to maintaining, or even creating, a more balanced society.
If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing

Not every University is taking students with 3 D's and an E. Especially if a student wants to study a difficult subject. But many students, who have the ability to learn, willing to learn and gain everything, just can't afford it. Wouldn't the Government benefit from having more successful people, who pay taxes? I think that uni should be free, but the "taking in" rules should be harder.
Paying for their education gives students sovereignty and responsibility for it

If students are made to pay for the tertiary education they choose to undertake it gives them a greater responsibility over their studies. This means that they will be more likely to perform academically and are less likely to do anything that will jeopardize the substantial investment they would have made into their education. In the long run this will also teach university graduates to be more responsible over things like their families and jobs. In summary, making students pay for their tuition fees will encourage academic performance, and therefore increase both the long term and short term benefits of undertaking a graduate degree
University education helps society

Free education enables everyone to have the opportunity to study. This means there would be more people going to universities. The outcome of this would be that in our society, more people will have higher degrees which means would be more people who are doctors, lawyers, nonprofit workers, teachers, business leaders etc. This has positive benefits. More doctors means more people who treat those who are sick. More teachers means, better quality of education for students. More nonprofit workers means more people who are trying to help and raise money for those who need it. When the number of people who get an education rises, the number of people who benefit from that persons education also rises. Therefore, free education will benefit our society because there will be more highly educated individuals who have the education and ability to help others.
There are already more than enough people going to university.

There are already more than enough people going to university. You admitted as much yourself when you said that many graduates could not find jobs. Many people are better off learning a practical or ‘vocational’ trade. It would fit their skills better and would help fill the frequent shortages of plumbers, electricians and other types of service provider. We should not waste time and money promoting the idea that everyone can or should go to university. Charging people the real cost of a degree course would make them think twice about the best option for them was.
University education is an investment.

But the government does benefit from people going to University. People who go to University will earn more and therefore they will pay more tax. It is in the government’s interests to pay for people to go to university. They should see it as their investment, not ours. Regardless of whether the loans are available or not, people do see the finances as a hindrance to their education. Many will think that their family cannot support themselves and so they need to earn money to keep their family afloat. If the Government made education free, then these people would be enabled to go to university and they will be able to get educated. Surely an educated nation is in the government’s benefit as well? Therefore, the investment yields a greater return for them on their capital. And quite aside from the national benefits of an educated population, there are absolutely no guarantees of future profits comparable to the outrageous tuition costs of some universities (particularly in the US). President Obama paid back his student loans only after becoming a US Senator and publishing a best-selling book [[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/]]. How many far less successful and wealthy alumni are saddled with a comparable debt? Income is never guaranteed, while interest on student loans is guaranteed to accumulate.
If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing

Even now, pretty much everyone can get into a university in England with their 3 D's and an E. So just think how many more of these people would attend uni if it was free. The numbers would be ridiculous. If everyone in the future can go to university for free and come out with some sort of degree in something whether it be origami or the science of superheroes. It's the age old question of if everyone has one, what is it worth?
Tuition fees will improve education recieved.

The argument that tuition fees are good because they improve the level of education received completely neglects those people who are unable to attend university at all because they cannot afford it. The selection process must be merit-based in order to keep standards up. It is simply wrong to allow students whose parents have money to spare on a college education to continue to receive have such an advantage. The problem should be solved by the government making higher education a bigger priority when deciding what to spend the budget on, not by expecting poor students to pay.
education should be for everyone and not based on social background

In the United States higher education is so expensive that only people with wealthy families or scholarships can afford going to school. If you do not have money to pay you have to borrow money from the government which will give you a huge loan which you have to pay back after university is done. It is also important to remember the cost outside the school with housing and books. This is unfair for the people who do not have the family money or the wealth that other people have. This will lead to poverty in generations because your parents will not earn enough money to go to school, therefore you will not get education and have to say yes to a lower paid job and cannot pay for your children education again. If education is free everyone can go to school if they want to and that can help form the next generation too. If will strengthen families and the society. In the countries in Europe where education is free social background does not matter. If you have money and want to spend them on education you can choose to study at private universities that cost a lot of money. We live in a society where everyone should have equal rights, therefore education should be free.
In the Debate.

The key factor of debate is matter. Let's assume 2 people. One use English based on correct grammar and spelling, but he/she does not have evidence to prove his/her argument. Why? Let's assume because of his/her lack of knowledge. He/she could suggest his/her argument and the reason, but he/she might have high possibility not to convince others. But the other use English mistakenly sometimes in the aspect of grammar and spelling. But he/she have evidence so he/she could fulfill the burden of proof. Unless his/her English makes other persons cannot understand their argument, the person who shows incorrect grammar and spelling does better than the person who shows correct spelling and grammar.
Bad spelling and grammar are incredibly annoying.

Everyone has their pet hates – personally I hate the grocer's apostrophe. Incorrect use of language, especially when the speaker should know better and refuses to correct themselves, is jarring, distracting and irritating. Crying babies are human beings, while spelling and grammar are rules. Rules are set on rationality. For example, if people experience unfairness in a law, then it is the government's job to either fix or abolish it, not let it be.
People need to be more tolerant of those with dyslexia and whose first language isn't English.

Constantly seeing incorrect grammar and spelling when trying to learn a language makes it more difficult to learn in the first place. Also, there is a difference between being understood and making sense (i.e. using correct grammar and punctuation). Consider the sentences, "Their parents went." and "There parents went." The reason why it is wrong to mistake 'their' for 'there' is because the meaning of the sentence changes. Just because someone else is capable of understanding the meaning you intended, rather than the meaning you wrote, does not make you correct in writing it.
Preciseness.

While precision is key in technical situations, such as in writing/presenting a mathematical proof, artistic forms such as literature and poetry emphasis emotional response and atmosphere over precision of grammar. Creativity requires invention. This could be an aberration from conventional grammar or spelling. Authors, particularly of dystopian fiction, create their own words/languages/dialects or using existing variations to capture and convey their characters`thoughts. In certain texts a taste of broken English is far more gripping than using plain perfect (bland) English.
... placed on ...

According to the source the opposition has absurdly cited [[http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0915460#m_en_gb0915460]] : 'Upon' is a formal way of saying 'On'. That, oh wonderful and great throngs of debate-wise readers, does not 'technically' make it wrong; only not colloquial. Counterargument addressed to the author of the opposing argumentation on the right: You are more than welcome to keep your tongue in your cheek, and take a good look in the mirror at the person who should be the proverbial butt of your joke. You need glasses and/or classes William, something has to be done about your lack of reading skills.
English grammar doesn't work.

It is a mish-mash of cobbled together rules from different languages with as many exceptions as there are words that obey the rules. People argue over the rules constantly and very few people know them or use them correctly. In many cases, such as inflammable vs. flammable, disorient vs. disorientate, the correct version sounds more awkward than the incorrect version. How can it be said to be a good thing to follow a system that doesn't work?
Preciseness.

A misspelled word, a poor choice of words, a comma or set of brackets in the wrong place, can give a sentence a completely different meaning. In sensitive situations, the consequences could be disastrous – consider 'I wouldn't leave you for anything' versus 'I'd leave you for nothing'. Absolute preciseness is especially important in legal language, mathematics or programming. Indeed, English can be manipulated to be gripping and compelling in a novel or a short story. However, broken English in a speech, for example, can sound non-professional. Imagine Obama saying "I has needed to go to bathroom when I pondered about the fly on a wall." It does not grip the audience, rather it gives the impression that the speaker either never learned grammar properly in school, has not prepared his or her speech, or does not know how to give a speech. It disappoints the audience who expected to hear a compelling speech, which Obama usually succeeds in giving.
Creativity.

Emphasizing on grammar and spelling is like a judge ruling by its precedent; they are rules that have already been widely accepted and established, even printed in the best grammar books by famous companies, such the grammar book by Oxford. Let us not forget that printing companies have editors that completely redden the pages of written work by some of the best authors, and fiction is just one genre. This means, that grammar and spelling had not stopped 'creativity' as mentioned in the opponent's argument. Grammar and spelling does not stop the ability to play with new words. Rather, grammar's purpose is to make a sentence comprehensible and establish a clear idea, and spelling's purpose is to make sure a word is correctly used or pronounced. Therefore, placing importance on grammar and writing does not deter creativity; in fact, there are new words added to the dictionary frequently.
No.

There is no mathematical miracle in the Qur'an. It has no basis of argument, and even if a bunch of numbers do coincide, that doesn't tell us much. We can find coincidences in the Bible and say that there is a mathematical miracle there as well. And no, it wouldn't be hard to write it in. I could quite easily write a book, using the word "Dave" every time the character Dave was mentioned, and the word "Derek" everytime the character Derek was mentioned, and then go through and change however many "Dave"s or "Derek"s as I needed into "He" or "the man" or whatever. I'd sit and write an essay for you to illustrate it, but this doesn't really need any more explanation.