BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We don't need 'teachers/schools' to access subjects in order to achieve.

My opponent has taken my argument out of context. “Now if we had our faces in front of computer all day, we would not go out and mingle.” - I haven’t stated anything that would make someone think like that. My initial argument was that, the Internet is a more powerful ‘education’ source than schools. It’s up to the individual to stare at the computer by randomly entering irrelevant websites. Just like it’s up to the individual to pay any attention at school - which maybe the cause of his/her failure to achieve the grades they need in order to progress.Response to your example with precise illustration.In relation to your ‘friend’, that was a ‘definite’ weak example with no reference to any logical proof. “She knows only half of what she is saying.. "She basically says what she read off of some website. So she really isn't retaining any information.” - Learning is a skill, it’s essential to life in any given circumstance. It could be the case that, she doesn’t know how to make good use of the Internet, or doesn’t research properly. For example: if she’s asked a question about ‘9/11’, and was told share her opinions, then she would have to research from different sources & not just ‘one’. There are always two sides to an argument, but it’s not up to an individual to pick a side. It’s their responsibility to research what both parties are saying, and then making a clear & structural evaluation of your own opinion (with reference to precise examples). Making a bond is irrelevant:Creating a bond with teachers can be helpful, but it won’t magically help you get the grades that you want. Teachers gets paid for education students the national ‘basic/advance’ levels of different subjects. They’re not here to make friendship although some might think that’s the case due to the ‘respect’ they show you. Computers are machines & it don’t have emotions. There are no stress, as PC’s doesn’t have the ability to put you under pressure by being aggressive. It’s obvious that humans can’t make bonds with machines, but they can certainly ‘fall in love’ with it’s functionality - which includes - access to the Internet & the liberty to express your opinions worldwide.
We don't need 'teachers/schools' to access subjects in order to achieve.

Well what does nit talking have to do with anything? You can talk to peers before school, during passing periods, at lunch and after school. Now if we had our faces in front of computer all day, we would not go out and mingle. For example: One of my good friends that I met in 6th grade was blossoming into a social butterfly, and she earned great grades because we had a great teacher and the kids in our school were so easy talk to. But no she is attending a Charder School that she only attends for 2 days a week,she is stuck in a class room with a no talking rule , and they don't even have a lunch period for themselves. In the mean time she is at home on her computer, she teaches herself from the internet. And when ask her a question about something she has learned from the internet she will respond with a educated answer... BUT she knows only half of what she is saying.. She basically says what she read off of some website. So she really isn't retaining any information. Now by using her as an example I was hoping to make a real life example... And what I mean by teacher can be our guide, is that teachers are humans and we can have relationship/bond with them, we can develop a form of respect for them and by having respect for will make us strive to make them happy by geting good grades, or at least TRYING. Teachers can be our parent in school. The teach us manors, and all sorts of things needed for daily life... Can a computer do that? Can you have a bond with a computer? Can computer teach you manours and how to become a better person? I think not!! :) And I sincerely apologize if I was going topic with the whole teacher respect/bond thing.
We don't need 'teachers/schools' to access subjects in order to achieve.

Learn what curriculum? These are courses offered by an educational institution and that being said, these subjects can be self-taught easily through access to libraries where they have all the different levels of textbooks to match your understanding. In terms of guidance and having the need for a mentor, it's not necessarily important. It's like saying to a friend 'lets do geography, because that teacher 'teaching style' is great. Regardless of someone's way of teaching, it's more benificiery of you can teach yourself the same things that a teacher might teach you. The Internet is a valuable source. You honestly don't need 'school', if you've got the Internet. For example: there's only limited amount of topics that you may learn in your History classes in the spam of 5 years. Maybe 7 topics max. However, on the Internet, you can easily revise & digest info into your brains by going all the way back to the introduction of cosmology. Ok, you've lost the plot completely in the area of personality and social classes. School is probably the only place where you're not able to 'socially interact with others of different personal, due to teachers & their 'rules' (no talking in class!) etc.In order to improve your communication skills and the urge to avoide awkward situations, you would have to 'opt' out of your working environment and shift into dissimilar environment. This is done to transform that inner ability to socialise with people of different background, ethnicity and personality.(Teachers) They're teaching us 'life skills'? For example... Life skills are taught in training and other specialist environments, and are completely different to the 'teachings' of 'teachers/staff'. Life skills are in the 'essence' of life. There are homeless kids in Africa, who are starving to death. They've self-taught themselves the ultimate skill.It's called 'survival'. Guess what? They didn't ave to go to a school.
We don't need 'teachers/schools' to access subjects in order to achieve.

My opponent has stated that we don't need schools/teachers for us to progress educationally...Well to me he is saying that we do not need a guide/mentor in our lives that contorts their teaching habits to benefit every student so they can they can learn the curriculum. Computers do not replace a human teacher, they simply tell you a bunch of excess information that is usually unwanted/unneeded. They do not challenge you, nor conforms to your level of understanding. By saying that we do not need schools, is basically setting up our social life for failure... By being in a school where a wide range of kids are, that have different personalities, different thoughts and opinions, makes us ready for the real world where we are going to be constantly faced with even a wider range of people.. That are in different social classes (just like in school with your pops,jocks,geeks ect.). By being faced withe things in school we will be prepared and not wind up being socially awkward. Going back to the teacher thing, we NEED them the are not just teaching us reading, writing, arithmetic but they are teaching us life skills, they share their stories with us so we can gain some kind of knowledge from it. Here is a debate I did on something like this http://www.debate.org...
We don't need 'teachers/schools' to access subjects in order to achieve.

The Internet is basically the modern version of 'High School & University'. Schools, Colleges and Universities, are in my opinion “no good” in terms of gaining knowledge from different sectors. For example: in order to achieve an A* for English, you’d have to revise from your textbooks & also making sure that you’re attending to school everyday. Psychologically, it puts an extensive amount of pressure on you, due to the existence of other subjects. It’s hard to revise for an exam, and also to finish coursework for other subjects. I’m all for education, but I believe that we can achieve a much higher level of knowledge through the Internet/online, and not by going to Schools, Colleges and Universities. The Internet is an engine that contains all the database that even schools and libraries don’t have. In-fact, Schools & Uni rely on the Internet every single day to provide students with new and better information.Do anyone disagree?
Marijuana should be legalized

In many states, they have begun to drop the noose that restricts medical marijuana use. In my state of CA you will find more dispensaries then star bucks. . however I think everyone should have this choice, and that it shouldn't be only ok for the terminally ill. I want to argue that this should be the federal standard(legal), and that marijuana has been taboo for so long, based on ignorance and denial. I am (pro) so will be defending and asserting this motion. (con) will argue marijuana should remain and/or be permanently illegal. The way it goes. .. .
Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide.

Pro did no more than restate that smoking posed hazards, and from that incorrectly jump to the conclusion that because of the potential hazards it ought to be banned. I showed the error of his logic by providing a list of activities that posed hazards for which choice is allowed: riding motorcycles, skate boarding, surfing, and putting butter on popcorn. Anyone could expand that list with a hundred more. Pro attempted to distinguish smoking from other activities, claiming "Smoking cigarettes or cigars even in moderation may cause a plethora of severe problems." In fact, if a person rides a motorcycle, surfs, or skateboards even once, they could suffer a serious injury or death. Activities that require learning special skills are more dangerous to novices. There is no evidence that smoking a cigar to, say celebrate the birth of a child, has an appreciable chance of killing you. That's not the case with many other activities. Being hazardous is not grounds for banning. Pro argues, "Making a universal ban will restrict production and a means to harm yourself." Correct, and such is the case with motorcycles, surfboards, skateboards, automobiles, and popcorn butter. The point that Pro evades is that he does not have the right to make the trade off of risks and rewards for other people. I posed the case of a old guy who is fully knowledgeable of smoking hazards and decides that the pleasure of smoking is a worthwhile offset to his other pains. I challenged Pro to make the case for the state overriding his choice. Pro ignored the challenge. That's no surprise, because there is no sensible case to be made. One justification for prohibiting individual choice is that it protects society from indirect bad consequences. I pointed out that insofar as smoking poses hazards to others, reasonable restrictions can be made to protect others. Pro made no counter argument. Therefore Pro's case is solely that he ought to be able to judge what's good for you, and then impose his will upon you for your own good. I offered a few sentences noting that Pro's resolution proposed banning all smoking, but that he only argued against cigarettes. He then argued that cigars are physically addictive because nicotine is addictive. Nicotine is addictive, but if the smoke is not inhaled, there is not enough to cause addictions. Pro provided no reference for any of his assertions in the entire debate. Cigar tobacco is processed in such a way that the smoke is extremely acrid. To "prove" cigars are just like cigarettes, they find a few Eastern Europeans who inhale the smoke. It's nonsense. My quotation from Kipling was to show that individuals cherish making their own decisions, even if most of us disagree with those values. I have no problem with Gandhi making other choices. We all ought to get the right to make our own choices, and for that reason the resolution is negated. "If there are no cigars in heaven, I won't go." -- Mark Twain
Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide.

I assumed my opponent would have gotten the essence of my argument being mainly on cigarette smoke as my entire points are based on it and its harmful effects. As my opponent is very keen to sway away from the main topic and meander into his own topic of choice; I am left with no option other than to play along with his game of semantics. Studies have shown that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Cigars contain nicotine, which may cause gum disease, oral cancer, increased tooth decay, and periodontal bone loss. Con argues that cigars are not physically addictive. Taking into account the people that do inhale cigars; each cigar contains about 1 pack of cigarettes worth of nicotine. Also, most people are repulsed by the stench is gives. Con argues that anything can be hazardous. That is true if done in excess. Smoking cigarettes or cigars even in moderation may cause a plethora of severe problems. Heroin is seldom used for medical use such as end-stage cancer or post surgical pain. Rather, morphine or strong opiates are used as they are a healthier tactic to reduce pain. You argue that people should have the choice to make their own decision whether or not to smoke. This leaves room for the imprudent to smoke and hurt themselves. Making a universal ban will restrict production and a means to harm yourself. Also, the cost of cigarettes spent only in America is overwhelming. Over 1/4 billion dollars is spent annually on cigarettes alone. Money spent on a frivolous purchase. In lieu, it could be spent on something more salubrious. As you are fond of quotes, here is one: "It is health that is real wealth, and not pieces of gold and silver." - Mahatma Ghandi.
Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide.

The resolution says that smoking should be banned universally, but only argued against banning cigarettes. Since cigars are generally not inhaled, they have many fewer health hazards than cigarettes, and cigars are not physically addictive. Since they are not addictive, cigars are often only used on special occasions, posing little hazard. Moreover, while smoking marijuana is usually for recreation, it is also legitimately use by chemotherapy patients under medical supervision. It should therefore be left to medical professionals to determine when use is appropriate, not universally banned. Note that heroin and other narcotics are allowed for medical use. Smoking cigarettes poses health hazards. There are also health hazards associated with riding motorcycles, skate boarding, surfing, and putting butter on popcorn. There is in each case a trade off between the pleasure an individual gets from doing something and the hazards of the activity. There is justification for the state to restrict the circumstances of the activity if there is some danger to others, but within those bounds it ought to be up to the individual to decide whether or not they take they risk. That is the case with smoking. There is no question it poses risks, but the individual ought to judge those risks ad decide for himself whether they are worthwhile. Pro argues that teenagers are especially poor at making judgments about risk. If that is the case, then that is a good argument for having special laws to prevent smoking by teenagers. It is not an argument for a universal ban. If grandpa gets to be 85 and suffers from arthritis and the gout, and he wants to sit in the backyard puffing away, from where does the state derive the authority to stop him? He is mature enough to make the decision and his smoking poses no credible threat to society. Four independent studies have been done on the health costs of smoking. All show there is no dollar cost. Smokers die young, and what they thereby save in medical costs offsets the costs of treating the extra illnesses they suffer in their shortened lives. http://www.usnews.com... When put on the spot, anti-smoking advocates admit they don't count the offsetting savings. Studies on the effects of second hand smoke use dubious protocols to get the answers they seek. However, even if true, that only argues that non-smokers be shielded from second hand smoke. That can be done by isolating smokers or by using clean-room air filtration technology to make the smoke undetectable to others. Pro asserts that smoking is generally bad, and then leaps to the conclusion that it ought to be universally banned. A universal ban is unwarranted and unjustified because people ought to assess the risks for themselves: "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." - The Betrothed, Rudyard Kipling
Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide.

I hold the position in agreement to my topic. Cigarettes should be banned from society and be illegal parallel to selling illicit narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Tobacco smoking can be dated back to approximated 6000 BC. Today it is ubiquitous throughout the Americas. 42 percent of Americans smoke cigarettes. The exponential increase in demand attests its highly addictive nature. Till today, some people rest assured that cigarettes are merely a mental addiction, and the "habit" can simply be tossed in the dust bin whenever they please. The media is culpable for this illusory misconception. Movie stars are seen quotidian puffing carefree on a cigarette. This allures many teenagers into thinking they be be lionized if they imitate their favorite actor/actress. In addition, teenagers are peer-pressured into smoking to maintain or achieve a status within their clique. There are an estimated 4000 chemicals compacted in each cigarette you smoke. Allow me to provide only a fraction of a percentage of them: A. Carcinogens: a chemical that can cause or aggravate cancer. Approximate 60 of the chemicals in cigarettes are known to cause cancer. A1. Benzene: found in gasoline. A2. Formaldehyde: chemical used to preserve dead bodies. B. Toxic Metals B1. Arsenic: Commonly used in rat poison. B2. Cadmium: Found in batteries. C. Radioactive Toxic Metals. C1. Lead 210 C2. Polonium 210 D. Poisons. D1. Ammonia: Commonly used in cleaning products. D2. Carbon Monoxide: Present in car exhaust. D3. Hydrogen Cyanide: used to kill people in gas chambers in WW2 in Germany. D4. Nicotine: poison used in pesticides and addictive element in cigarettes. As for second hand smoke, research has shown it contains 250 toxic chemicals, including 50 cancer causing chemicals. Ostensibly, it is more pernicious than most assume. The makers of these cigarettes have kept the majority of these substances clandestine for a long time. There is no reason cigarettes should be legal anywhere. Greed, corruption, and dishonesty should be the producers motto. The egregious makers should be incarcerated and held culpable for their nefarious acts.
Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

https://docs.google.com...# If the link doesn't work, please PM me. Never used Google Docs before. Please do not consider it a concession if I don't address an argument in this round. I'd like to use this as a sort of CX of your case. 1. How does moral skepticism affect the resolution? 2. What warrants do you have for moral skep? 3. What do you believe I must defeat in your case to win this debate? 4. Why should moral skepticism provide that targeted killing is permissible by default rather than not permissible by default? What warrants this default?
Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

Mmkay. I agree to all of these. So is it ok if I use Google Docs for the case, and then I type my arguments and defenses in the actual DDO format box thing? Also, my evidence is printed and not linked, but it is cited in the case and if you ask to see it, I will send it. For answers to these questions, please post in the comments or PM me. Thanks for the challenge!
Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

The resolution is as follows:Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Pro is affirming. Con is negating. A few ground rules:1. As this is an LD topic, we will be having an LD style debate. The rounds will be structured to be as close to LD as possible (round structure will be explained later on).2. All types of LD cases are acceptable.3. Cases may be posted in google document links. Please do not abuse this.4. Dropped arguments = concessions.5. In the event of a forfeited round, unless clarified otherwise, all 7 points go to the victor. Round structure goes as thus:Round 1: Acceptance only. NO CASES HERE. Round 2: Aff case, Neg case/rebuttals. Round 3: Aff rebuttals, neg rebuttals. Round 4: Aff rebuttal. Neg does not post an argument in this round, to keep with consistency with the LD format. PLEASE DO NOT FORFEIT THIS ROUND. Good luck.
Closing the tap while you are brushing your Teeth

Thank you, Syed, for proposing what I'm sure will be an enthralling debate. Unfortunately, my opponent fails to affirm the resolution. His argument that "This is the easiest way the help the environment," is not supported by any sources or argumentation, hence it registers as a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy (http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...), therefore does not affirm the resolution. Since the other half of his arguments involves restating the resolution ("It is by turning the tap of while you are brushing your teeth"), the resolution fails to be affirmed, thus Con wins by default.
Abortion

Abortion goes against so many things. First of all it goes against the law. The fetus is a human being and very alive. The definition of a living thing is anything with cells and the fetus is made of human cells. Therefore, it is alive and you are killing a human being which is against the law. It also goes against basic rights and responsibilities. It is the woman's right to engage in intercourse and it is her responsibility to take care of the child. It also takes away the child's rights. It can also cause regrets and serious depression in the future. Abortion is a terrible process that should not be legal.
Abortion

You have stated that if the fetus doesn't feel pain then it shouldn't be a problem but that doesn't justify abortion. If something doesn't feel pain it's still not ok to kill them. If someone was in a coma or couldn't feel pain in any circumstance then you shouldn't kill them just because they don't feel pain. You are also taking away the life that that child could live but abortion denies that child (or fetus) to any future life. Life is a gift and should never be taken away from anyone. They could do something great in this world or even save lives. They will never experience love, happiness, or anything joyful in life. Life is an amazing thing that everyone should deserve to live. It also amazes me that everyone that is for abortion has already been born. You also stated that it helps population control but that doesn't mean you should let these children die without a chance in life. Killing helps population control and the Holocaust even helped population control but that didn't make it right.
We should shame fat people.

I would like to start off by saying I have no problems with fat people in general, I have many fat friends. My stance is that being fat is not healthy. When I say "shame fat people" what I mean by that is the same way we would shame or frown upon drug users. I know arguing this topic puts me at a disadvantage, but I look forward to the challenge and I look forward to a good civil debate. I want to stress again that I have nothing against fat people, I just see problems caused by really fat people.