BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US

I think the analogy that you provided about having more appreciation for a car that was purchased with your own, hard-earned money was perfect, and I tend to agree with it. That being said, I think the metaphor is a little misguided. You assume that because the tuition of school is free, the student body will take the education for granted, but I do not believe this to be true. Some of the economic effects of providing free education that you have listed in your argument are true; creating a binding price ceiling has been proven to create a shortage of supply and a surplus of demand - but that alone is not the only effect. In this case, that shortage will directly result in the appreciation mentioned in your metaphor. Because there ar less opportunities due to a lessened supply, the market for education will become more competitive on the demand side; and because acceptance is no longer tuition-based, that competition will be directly reflected in the student body's grades. The appreciation does not come from working hard to earn money to spend on an education, but from working hard to do get the highest grades. Which, as a tertiary effect, would also raise our country's education rankings. Additionally, I only mentioned that we add an additional tax, but I did not say that we would tax the rich, specifically. It would be possible to add a housing tax, based on the proximity to an educational institution, like they do with public K-12 education institutions, or how many individual students a parent has, or any combination of specific taxes. "Additional taxes" does not explicitly mean taxing the rich.
Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US

I accept and will argue for the pro side of the debate. Our country is 34th in mathematics, 27th in science, and 45th in literacy because of free education. Suppose you want to buy a car. You worked for 10 weeks, 48 hours a week, in order to get this car. You used all that money to buy this car. Because you worked so hard for it, you will care for that car, and treat it like a baby. Your satisfaction will be much higher because you worked and worked for that car. But if you were given money and bought the same car, by definition you will appreciate the car much less. The same goes for education. Although the literacy rate in the US has grown, the Russian Federation's has a much higher literacy rate and Tertiary education rate. Their literacy rate is 99.7% and Tertiary education rate is 53%, both the highest in the world. The Russian Federation Government provides Elementary and Secondary Education, but nothing more. They don't provide Grants, Subsidies, or Federal Student Loans. This is exactly why their education rate in general is so good. When the Federal and State Governments started to help students pay for college, the prices shot up. Supply and Demand created a need to raise prices because there was more money to pay for college. The more a customer can pay, the more the supplier will charge. If you want to provide college for all Americans for free, why don't you blow up Wall Street first? The taxes on the "rich" and "greedy" oil companies and billionaires will destroy the market. Because the businesses are taxed so heavily, they won't have enough money to safely invest into new businesses or projects, slowing down the economy, and eventually hurting those you were trying to help. This will bring the economy into a downward spiral, and soon there won't be any money left to pay for those schools. While this seems drastic, this will eventually be what will happen. Another point is that wages all over America will go down. Because being educated is free, there will be a surplus, a large surplus, of skilled workers. By the laws of economics, this will bring the value of labor down. The more of something there is, the less it is worth. Not only would this hurt the future worker, it would destroy past workers. Students that have gone into debt in the past will be at a severe disadvantage because the education that they had past acquired and for it paid masses of money, they won't be able to pull out of debt. You might say "freedom and equality for all" to justify your reasoning for this funding. In the end, you are just taking it away. You would be taking the people's freedom to prosper and work by taxing them and redistributing that money. That would be a form of embezzlement. You would sacrifice the Rich's rights, who are a minority, to fund the poor's irresponsibility?
Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US

Being that this is a topic of interest in the media, and the current presidential runnings, I would like to have a debate over whether or not the United States should institute a socialized college education system, where student tuition comes from taxes and government subsidies. I will be arguing the "pro" side of this debate. Our current higher education system is broken. While many educational institutions claim that student education is the utmost important thing, money seems to be of far more interest. If it were true that education was that important, universities would seemingly be more likely to choose the student who has worked hard to maintain a high GPA, and have the highest grades, but that is not the world we live in. We live in a world were average, mediocre grades are accepted much more often than those of higher standards when accompanied by a large tuition check. Because of this, the students who worked hard are pushed aside, and our country continues to sit at 34th in mathematics, 27th in science, and 45th in literacy. Creating a socialized higher education system would change this. Making a tuition-free environment, and subsidizing educational systems using our taxes, would discard the need for the large tuition check, and would shift the focus to the students who have worked hard to go to school.
The World Should Return to the Gold Standard

Thank you for letting me take up the con side of this debate. First of, how much gold is there in the world? The amount of gold in the entire world is 171300 tonnes with a gold price of $1138.40 per ounce, giving all the gold in the world a net worth of about $6,681,000,000,000, just above six and a half trillion dollars. http://www.bbc.com... http://www.goldpriceoz.com... http://onlygold.com... Second, how much money is there in the world? Now there are a lot of different ways to measure the amount of money in the world, but let's just take the smallest one, the M0, which only looks at how many physical coins and bills there are in the world. Looking only at America there are 1,380,000,000,000, almost one and a half trillion dollars. However the amount of coins and bills around the world have an estimated value of five trillion dollars (5,000,000,000,000). This amount would make t possible to use the gold standard, although the logistics of dividing the gold between nations would be really complicated. http://money.howstuffworks.com... http://www.federalreserve.gov... http://dollardaze.org... The money in the world is not just the amount of bills and coins though. The M1, which also includes money in checkings accounts is estimated to be about 25 trillions for the entire world, making the gold standard impossible to enforce with the current gold prizes. But even the M1 does account for all the money in the world, to do that you need M3, and while a lot of the money aren't quickly spendable, they are still money. The world's M3 reaches 75 trillion dollars, meaning if you wanted to switch to the gold standard you would make gold worth ten times as much as it is now. http://dollardaze.org... The fact that the gold standard restricts the governments power which is one of the usually cited strengths is also one of the great weaknesses of the system. Fiat currency allows the government to stimulate the economy during regression or depression. http://www.investopedia.com... Proponents of the gold standard often claim that it is much more stable than fiat money, but take a look at these graphs: http://cdn.theatlantic.com... http://cdn.theatlantic.com... There has been 23 times less fluctuation since Fed began quantive easing than under the gold standard. http://www.theatlantic.com... And this quote by Nouriel Roubini, co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics: "When you had a traditional gold standard, boom and bust with severe swings in economic activity were the norm"really big ones. It was only once we moved to fiat money that central banks were able to smooth the business cycle, and make it less volatile, as we did during the financial economic crisis," http://www.cnbc.com... The gold standard makes wealth depend on how much gold we can dig up from the ground, totally shifting the economy upside down. Not all countries have large gold reserves and lots of gold mines, and that will mean that there will be a lot of wealthy countries that won't be wealthy after implementing the gold standard. Also on a larger scale it tends http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.cnbc.com...
The World Should Return to the Gold Standard

As pro I think that the World should return to the gold standard as in the gold standard of 1950. Con thinks that it shouldn't return to the gold standard as in the gold standard of 1950. Definitions:The Gold Standard:A monetary system in which a country's government allows its currency unit to be freely converted into fixed amounts of gold and vice versa. The exchange rate under the gold standard monetary system is determined by the economic difference for an ounce of gold between two currencies. The gold standard was mainly used from 1875 to 1914 and also during the interwar years. [1]The World:the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples. [2]Should:must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): [3]Return:to restore to a former or to a normal stateRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No Trolling3. Both Sides have equal Burden Of Proof4. Please take this seriously5. No Semantics or kritiks6. No Insults or Ad Hominem7. No arguments outside of the debate, so no arguments in the comments, also no sources outside of debate or in the comments8. No Forfeiting9. No Cheating10. No Spamming11. Only Votes which have Reason for Decison will be accepted12. No Straw-Man Arguments (we would have to carry gold bars. Etc)Debate StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Presentation/CaseR3. RebuttalsR4. New Arguments[1]: . http://www.investopedia.com...[2]: . https://www.google.ch...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Apply in the Comments.
Employers have the right to check possible employees Facebook or other social networking accounts

"If future employers want to build a close relationship as long as it doesn't harass their prospective employee it isn't bad, although it isn't smart business practice because it is risky and unethical as they are in a position of power." It is not risky or unethical. And it can be a smart business practice, because they are simply making sure the worker is satisfactory and won't harm the company's reputation. It will prevent bad people from being hired. When you think about it, this can be used in a good way too because the person may have many achievements on their Facebook account, or proof of them having high creativity or intelligence. It may ENCOURAGE the employer to hire them. Looking at a Facebook account is not penalizing someone. Imagine this, a regular person is applying for a job and the employer decides to do research on this person to make sure he is compatible for the job and there are no serious problems with him. Odds are there will not be inappropriate pictures of doing illegal things on his Facebook page. If there is a little evidence of this, there is still a possibility of him getting the job, so it really is no harm to check out their Facebook page. Employers absolutely have the right to do this. It is not invading anyone's privacy since anyone can see their information and posts anyways. Social networks aren't meant for business purposes, I agree, however it is helpful for employers to view their info just to be safe. There is no harm in it.
Employers have the right to check possible employees Facebook or other social networking accounts

1: Social networking is a social, not a business networking account. No person should have the right to penalize someone for refusing to let them access to their home, address book, personal data assistant, cell phone, or for not having one since some people choose not to have an account. While social networking may promote businesses, and foster healthy business relationships the main premise is to socialize. People post ideas and beliefs on Social Networking sites that they don't act on, should there be access for potential bosses to subtly discriminate in hiring practices in an unethical and immoral manner without the person attempting to get the job being able to provide proof of discrimination. The premise of not mixing business with pleasure helps avoid lawsuits. If future employers want to build a close relationship as long as it doesn't harass their prospective employee it isn't bad, although it isn't smart business practice because it is risky and unethical as they are in a position of power. 2: While gathering insight into a person's character is laudable, behavioral cues, personal references, business references, background checks, etc. do wonders at aiding bosses from weeding out people they don't want working for them. The problem usually comes from those who are desperate for employees they will hire whomever, hiring those new to the workforce who are untested, or hiring someone without doing thorough research such as background checks. Social networking is a cheap way to gather information on someone's character without having to provide as much time, thought, and money. The energy expenditure of time, thought, and money help make a better basis for reasoned decisions as to who to hire, and how to manage a business. People who work at hiring the right person are more likely to hire the appropriate person for the job. 3: People lie for all sorts of reasons and this is prevalent on social networking sites. Getting an accurate portrayal of who someone is based on their social habits is inaccurate especially if they are only allowed restricted access. People will hide things and lie to strangers out of tact, politeness, and privacy while expose amazingly wonderful or horrendous things in private accesses of social networking sites. 4: Sharing things social networking sights is like welcoming someone into your home, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy according to Facebook terms and conditions, as a result you can keep the bedroom doors closed while opening the rest of the home to family and friends, and with acquaintances you can share your foyer,front yard, maybe back yard, and porch with conversation. Those without any access might be able see the home, yard, and porch, but not be privy to the conversations. Social networking sites have privacy practices that protect the account holders for these reasons.
Employers have the right to check possible employees Facebook or other social networking accounts

Employers should have the right to see applicants Facebook pages or social networking accounts. Firstly, there is no possible compromise for this. According to the Facebook Terms and Conditions, which everyone must agree to in order to have an account; the person"s information, posts and pictures are all property of Facebook. Also A study shows that 37% of hiring managers use social networking sites to research job applicants, with over 65% of that group using Facebook as their primary resource. Employers have the right to know whom they are hiring, and whether they will contribute to the company rather than affect it badly. Another reason employers should look at applicants" Facebook pages is that it could determine whether that person has good behavior. Evidence of taking illegal drugs, consuming alcohol or committing crimes can be shown in pictures and posts on Facebook or other social networking sites. Seeing these types of things beforehand can protect the company and its reputation. Social networks also show the unbiased personality and behavior of possible employees. If someone applies for a job they could present false information or lie about their personality, and companies can see this by checking Facebook and other social networking accounts. Many people may believe that this is an invasion of privacy, however it really is not because people agreed to share their posts and information to the world. Social networking sites are made FOR sharing. If people allow any regular Facebook users to look at their account, why can't employers? Besides, a social network account is completely different than, say, a bank account or email address, because those are completely private, and MEANT to be private, while a social networking account is the exact opposite. That is why employers should be able to continue looking at applicants Facebook and other social networking accounts to make sure the person is worthy of having a job. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://news.cnet.com...
Death Battle: Meta Knight vs Link

I thank Furiousjay48 for accepting. Before I get into why Meta Knight would win, I have to make a few statements.Well, this is supposed to be which character is stronger, not "Who's the better character in Smash Bros". By Smash Bros Link, I was reffering to the equipment he has, and moves. Here's how the debate will work: We can examine our character's Smash bros moveset, and limit the usage of moves to this. However, we must examine a few feats that the characters had in their respective games (For Link, the Contender can choose either the canon of the original Legend of Zelda, Zelda 2, Ocarina of Time, or Twilight Princess).So here's Meta Knight's moves:Mach Tornado: Meta Knight creates a tornado around him, damaging enemies and destroying weak projectiles.Drill Rush: Meta Knight drills into his opponent. It does around 12% damage in Smash Bros.Dimensional Cape: Meta Knight is able to teleport a short distance. While coming out of teleportation, he can attack, but it leaves him vulernable for a bit.Shuttle Loop: A decently powerful upwards attack.Galaxia Sword:Of course, we can't just use attacks from Smash Bros. We also have to look at them in their own games. Meta Knight wields the Galaxia sword, which can destroy large objects that requires a mech suit for Kirby (Planet Robobot).Meta Knight has defeated Galacta Knight, a supreme swordman known for destroying planets. Not ust once, but twice! Either Meta Knight's really good at combat, or it's the Galaxia Sword (probably both).Conclusion:So Meta Knight is quite powerful. We will limit our characters to their move sets in Smash Bros, but their feats and weaponry stay with them. So what'll my opponent's argument be? (Sorry if you weren't expecting this. I just don't want to argue who's the better Smash Bros fighter, and instead who would win in a real fight.)
Death Battle: Meta Knight vs Link

Swordplay is an art. It requires skill, focus, and the possession of a powerful sword. Today, this is a battle between Meta Knight, the Masked Swordsman, and Link, the Hero of Hyrule. AnimationRewind had these two fight, and is planning on using another Link. But is a Link worthy of this match? That's where we come in.Rules:1. The Contender will choose either Meta Knight, or the Link of his choice. I'll be arguing for the character they don't pick.2. When arguing for Link, you can choose any one Link in the Zelda series (You can't choose Four Swords or Triforce Heroes, since those are multiple Links). Or you can choose Link from Smash Bros.3. Forfeiting (running out of time) will count as an instant loss, so at least attempt to refute my points.4. The cartoons will not be canon in this fight. So you can't argue that Meta Knight has thousands of years of experience and call it game. We will only see what the characters have done in their respective games.5. No trolling of any sort. The use of kritiks, semantics, or bull will count as an instant loss. (The voters will judge whether you're trolling or not).So who is interested in arguing for what character?
Death Battle: Meta Knight vs Link

Flawed or false problemsRebuttal:Moves:Move wise Link and Meta Knight are around the same. Link using a bomb is in a way kind of a deterrent as he can use them close to himself with minimum damage. The Gale Boomerang isn't always used as a far ranged attack as it can be used to throw Meta Knight back. The bow can be used at different power and time so it can be adapted to the situation.Galaxia Sword:As for swordsmanship Link is superior, but in sword strength, yes the Galaxia Sword is stronger but, it also takes a major toll on the user. Meta Knight is also a character that can easily be avoided and countered.ConclusionAs my opponent has stated, Meta Knight won't let up his attacks voluntarily, so say Link dodged one of Meta Knights attacks Meta Knight would be slow in countering and turning around. As for the Dimensional Cape, it's fairly decent at being able to read if you're in a close quarter combat situation. As for raw power Link would win, with controlled power Meta Knight. But with dispersed attack comes the fact that with Meta Knight's attacks are more aerial attacks than ground based so Link has the advantage of Meta Knight being predictable.As for the Master Sword it is unbreakable as well but when not faced with darkness it has the same effect as any other sword.(Thanks for the tip on Rich text)
Death Battle: Meta Knight vs Link

I'll be examining his points to see if they're true or flawed. Rebuttal:Moves:There's nothing wrong with my opponent's moves Well, except Meta Knight probably won't stay far enough for Link to use his arrows or boomerang. Also, I don't think the bomb would be safe when Meta Knight's bombarding Link with all these attacks. Master Sword: "Link has battled many monsters and slayed many more with the sword of light. In all of the games (except Four Swords) he has earned the right of being called the Hero of Time by simply pulling out this sword when Hyrule was in extreme danger. "First of all, the Hero of Time is Young Link, and no one else. Second, the Master Sword in known as "The Blade of Evil's Bane", and it's meant to repel evil rather than just opponents in general. Meta Knight isn't evil, so the Master Sword won't be as effective as Link fighting Ganon. Hylian Shield:Yeah, the shield is really durable. But Link has to actually block Meta Knight's attacks, which come by kind of fast, not to mention Meta Knight could just Dimensional Cape behind Link and attack. Also, click "Rich Text" to get these cool features I'm using. Conclusion:Sure, Link has many tools, but he'd have to stay at a safe distance to use arrows. Chances are, Meta Knight won't let up his attacks. Plus, the Galaxia Sword is powerful, regardless of the opponent. The Master Sword is only powerful against darkness and evil.