BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Well, let's get right into the responses to the pro side. "Con near concedes: 'You can say that in California, in the western hemisphere, that the sun rise in the western hemisphere. ' My response: Therefore, given the agreed to definitions, you concede half of the resolution that the sun does appear above the horizon in the west of the specified area the earth. " RESPONSE: Sure. Maybe in some places the sun does rise in the west but not in all. Not to mention the fact that in some it doesn't. But that's not everywhere on Earth. "Con adds: 'The answer is, all of it. The resolution never specified where on Earth. ' My response: Right, since the resolution didn't specify where on earth, *anywhere* on earth would satisfy "on earth," and, while I feel it silly to point out, both California and Japan are "on earth" and the western and eastern hemispheres are specified areas "on earth" as well. " RESPONSE: They are on Earth, but when the resolution says on Earth, it's specifically referring to everywhere on Earth. "You rightly mentioned that: 'The resolution doesn't say "On Earth, in California. .. The resolution never specified where on Earth. ' So then you also agree, since the resolution did not specify, that the resolution doesn't say "Everywhere on earth" just like it didn't say 'On earth in California. '" RESPONSE: While it doesn't say everywhere on Earth, it doesn't refer to a specific location either. I think this issue should be decided by the voters, because it relies on one's interpretation of the resolution. My view is that it is referring to "all Earth", because it says "On Earth". It doesn't say "any specific location on Earth". It's all about interpretation. "Con persists: 'Unless pro can prove that EVERYWHERE on Earth, the resolution is true, you should vote con. ; My response: I'm going to turn your reasoning against you, Con. " RESPONSE: If you're trying to say that I have to prove everywhere on Earth the resolution is not true, then you're dead wrong. According to YOUR own guidelines, pro has the burden of proof to prove the resolution true. All I have to do is cast doubt on the resolution. One thing I want to make clear is that while the sun can rise in the west, in one locations, and set in the east in another, it cannot do BOTH at ONE SPECIFIC location. Using the pro's logic, the sun rises (in California), in the west, but also sets in the west. It doesn't do both at ONE location. Using the pros logic that they have to prove at one specific location, the resolution is true, they should lose the round. Because if it is only one specific location, then they haven't proved the WHOLE resolution to be true, in one location. But if it's everywhere on Earth, they haven't proven throughout Earth, the resolution is true.
On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East

That is one interesting way to look at it, however it is an incorrect way based on your resolution and definitions. First I want to point out that the definitions of east and west state "denoting the (eastern/western) part of a specified area. The question that should be raised is: What is the specified area? Well again, that depends. The specified area is Earth, but you can get more specific with that. You can say that in California, in the western hemisphere, that the sun rise in the western hemisphere. You can also say that it sets in the western hemisphere. Now what does the resolution say? "On Earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east." Also under the "Pro" section of the guidelines of the debate say that "Pro also has the [Burden of Proof] to show that on Earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east." And here is the only arguments needed to warrant a vote for con. The resolution says "On Earth". Where on Earth, you might ask. The answer is, all of it. The resolution never specified where on Earth. The resolution doesn't say "On Earth, in California,". It says "On Earth" meaning throughout all the Earth, the sun sets in the east and rises in the west. Unless pro can prove that EVERYWHERE on Earth, the resolution is true, you should vote con. Thank You
On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Thanks for accepting, Con.I love to debate falsisms.I also love that scientific concepts can be looked at differently.Time to shine!*Sunrise in Los Angeles*Los Angeles, California, USA is located in the western hemisphere of the earth.The people who live in California, Californians, witness sunrises.The sun manages to appear above the horizon in the west, because those who live in Los Angeles live in the west and experience sunrises everyday.The sun actually rises in the west (Los Angeles, USA).https://www.google.com...*Sunset in Tokyo*Tokyo, Japan is located in the eastern hemisphere of the earth.The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness sunsets.The sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the east, because those who live in Tokyo live in the east and experience sunsets everyday.The sun actually sets in the east (Tokyo, Japan).https://www.google.com...*Conclusion*Therefore, I affirm.
On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.*1st round is for acceptance.*By accepting the debate, the definitions below are agreed to be used.*I request that moderators actually remove supid, irrelevant, votes.Full ResolutionOn earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east.ProHas 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Pro also has the BoP to show that on earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east.ConHas 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.Definitionsearth - the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars at an average distance of 149.6 million km from the sun, on which we live.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...sun - the star around which the earth orbits.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...actually - as the truth or facts of a situation; really.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...rise - appear above the horizon.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...west - denoting the western part of a specified area.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...set - appear to move toward and below the horizon.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...east - denoting the eastern part of a specified area.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Students should be required to wear dress code

I agree with you, bullying does occur in various places under certain circumstances. People do get made fun of for things other than their style or expressing what they like, but a lot of the bullying is from making fun of clothes. Uniforms would create equality throughout schools. More students would feel equal to others, not below. I believe with a uniform you can still express yourself, you could easily add accessories such as jewelry, the color socks or tights of your choice, you still are allowed to wear your hair in the fashion you enjoy. Creating different uniforms would not create rivalry at all.. Different schools support different school colors. No unfriendly actions would occur. They do not separate us from the world, we are not locked up. The uniforms usually are expensive, but if you think about it the cost of a few pairs of pants, skirt and a shirt is nothing compared to the amount of clothing public school kids need/wear. Think of the amount of money they spend on clothes. So in the long run, uniforms may seem expensive, but compared to wearing regular clothes everyday it really isn't.
Students should be required to wear dress code

Bullying occurs in many different places under all different circumstances. People may get made fun of for their hair, eyes, heritage, hobbies and none of that can be fixed by having a uniform. I believe uniforms are not what determines if a school is successful or not. Having a uniform discourages self expression. With uniforms in the school system people will still form cliques for example. Uniforms try to cover up the problems of society and mask the bullying for example that comes to all schools. Also many times uniforms are very expensive like at Mount Saint Charles were the skirts are 50 dollars and people get written up for to short of skirts forcing them to buy 50 dollar pants. Actually your point helps prove another point of mine, the different uniforms between schools forms rivalries and unfriendly actions. Uniforms actually separate us from the world and make us seem like we are different from a person who goes to a public school. If kids had the choice to go to a private school they would most definitely take it but money is always a key factor and it is not up to the student.
Students should be required to wear dress code

I do not agree with your statement about people being judged, not everyone will be getting judged. Wearing the same clothes will eliminate stereotypical and crude comments. I believe that a large part of bullying is what you wear. I know at my public school a lot of kids were talking badly about and made fun of because they did not have items of clothing that were "in style". I think that dress code does in fact promote equality, everyone is dressed in almost the same way to create an environment that is healthy and positive. The reason behind eliminating maroon polo is because our principal did not want to be affiliated with other schools that had maroon as their school color, such as Woonsocket, La Salle, Tiverton, etc... Our principal wanted Mount to be represented differently and known. Yes it does separate us from other schools, but I think that each school should have it's own specific uniform, just as many private schools have today.
Students should be required to wear dress code

I agree that it is a good idea to have students represented equal but even in uniforms at Mount Saint Charles Academy each person is not viewed as equal. Everyone will be judged no matter what they are wearing. Bullying is a key factor that happens in all high schools, middle schools or even elementary schools, uniforms are not what decides if there is bullying. I know that dress code does make everyone seem equal and too a point promotes equality, yet there are the downfalls to this hypothesis. For example, this year at Mount the uniform had changed, the elimination of maroon shirts. Do you know the reason for this elimination? The elimination of the shirts students because our school didn't want to be tied together with Woonsocket High School who wear maroon shirts. This type of change defines the purpose of uniforms, equality. It separates us from kids who are just like us, who maybe not be as fortunate as the students that attend Mount Saint Charles.
Students should be required to wear dress code

Students should be required to wear specific items of clothing for school. It eliminates bullying, stereotypes, and stress free mornings. It stops bullying because I know at my old public school a lot of kid were talked about and made fun of because they didn't have the clothes that were "cool" or "in style". Many people are judged and bullied for what they wear, having a uniform would eliminate this issue. I understand that every person has their own specific style that they like to express, but having a uniform leaves the impression that everyone is equal. Many people who wear black are stereotyped as "emo" or "goth" and with eliminating one's decision on what to wear would immensely reduce a student/ person judging and making fun of others.
euthanasia should be a category on debate.org's profiles

The way you approached the argument, I think, lends credit to my opinion. While some people believe that we should cling to life as much as we can, others do no not. This has been conflict going all the way back to the Stoics of classical antiquity. In addition, there is the argument of whether people have the right to have themselves killed or whether doctos have the right to do it. There are plenty of opinions on the issue, and the legislation on it is not finalized, so again, I think it deserves a place on the board.
euthanasia should be a category on debate.org's profiles

Valid point. But most everybody will have the same reaction when asked if you would want to continue living in a vegetative state, or even in a state where the value of life has been decreased. That response being pro euthanasia. But that question does not carry any weight because it is easy to answer when your healthy. But I have seen people during their final moments, and the fear of the unknown becomes more prevelant. An extremely small percentage of people are willing to take their own life opposed continue fighting to see their loved ones and experience as much life has to offer before they pass (that statement being made under the stipulation that the individual has a sober mind set). I guess what I am saying is that people do not want to lose the quality of life that we know...now, the healthy life if you will, and death by a painless injection or inhalent sounds like a better option...now. But we do not know what situational circumstances will be in play when that decision needs to be made. Where as in the abortion circumstance most are terminations are done because of the unwillingness or unprepared to become a parent. And of course situations dictate in those rare circumstances of rape or sexual abuse. Again it is an intereasting debate topic but because the human survival instinct I am going to have to say that it's place on the profile page is not warranted in my opinion.
euthanasia should be a category on debate.org's profiles

I do not believe that simply because an argument is not directly affecting the lives of the people on this site it is not worthy of categorization. How many of us here have ever had abortions? Probably a very small amount. Any of us may be critically injured on any average day while driving in our cars, and then, of course, euthanasia would matter to us very much; therefor, i believe it worthy of increased debate and a place on the profile. In addition, it is definately a current issue . For example, the laws governing Active and Passive Euthanasia are different in oregon (those not in critical condition may be euthanized there) than in the rest of the U.S. Furthermore, doctors euthanize patients everyday, and many people (not me) believe it to be morally reprehensible based on the value of human life, the Hippocratic Oath, etc.
euthanasia should be a category on debate.org's profiles

The category system on the website is, I think, designed to provide broad headings of topics that are currently controversial (abortion, the war, taxes, etc). This system provides easy ways for us, the users, to engage in debates because we can see issues upon which we differ. I do not think anyone would contest that we DO NOT all agree on the legal or ethical status of Euthanasia as a method of ending a life. It is one of the most controversial topics in America and elsewhere and I think we could all benefit if it were one of our categories. I firmly believe this would increase debate on a very worthy topic
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

The problem is, there are many problems that people face; it is unrealistic for school to be able to prepare you for all of them. You should be spending your entire life learning, not just until 18, so concepts that occur later in life, e.g. taking care of a child, should be taught then as well. Use school to focus on more important problems/harder concepts/to explain the problems that it does teach in depth. I do agree that nutrition is vastly underrated and should probably be taught in school; however, certain things, such as how to deal with death of a loved one, childbirth, how to ask a girl out on a date, etc., can be taught in other places and through other means. You have limited time in school; if you try to teach everything, then you won't go in depth on anything either.
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

This is where our arguments differ then. I see school as a good place to prepare for such experiences. Obviously nothing can truly prepare you for a loss like that but that is not to say that learning through discussion cannot have a hugely positive effect. Another example: when I was at child and lost a grandparent with whom I was very close, I was lucky to have a strong and loving support network to help guide me through it. Had I not such support the experience could have been considerably worse. To prepare children for this I think death is an important discussion and school an ideal place in which to have it. Hearing other people's understandings of such an immensely confusing and unknown aspect of life and the realisation that you are not the only person who has no idea what to think can be hugely beneficial. How could this be done? It already is to some extent within religious studies, although the discussion here would benefit leaning a little more as to why such beliefs in the afterlife are held (this is a tentative subject to approach but when you do I have found in my personal experience that the discussions are engaging and enjoyable). Art can obviously be used to explore this as can literature and media. Great honest explorations of death in my youth were the Harry Potter series and, even younger, the tales of Redwall by Brian Jacques. By staying mindful of these aspects of life we can far better improve the chances of many individuals when they are faced by these challenges out in the real world. I agree that learning never stops, but to me it is not a stepping stone process, it infinitely expands and deepens in all directions as you pass through life and shared learning is an great place to dip our toes into the water for the first time, supported by both the experienced and our young peers. This to me is the stuff that school needs to teach you well and can be a foundation upon which literacy and numeracy can be engagingly built. I suppose to close my side of this discussion i see it as follows; in a world in which we seem to be increasingly leaning on the established structures of state and industry (healthcare, infrastructure) and away from the support of close-knit community, education must strive to evolve to prepare the young in whichever way they require for their future. In its most simple form I see it like this: Child 1 has wholesome healthy meals made by parents every night. Child 2 is not so lucky, one parent has left and the other is struggling for both time and money so Child 2's nutrition is poor. Child 2 grows up with health issues (obesity, diabetes, depression). In society what are the only common denominators here? Both children and entitled to and required to have an education. Can we justify saying "Well Child 1 learnt about nutrition at home so there is no reason Child 2 couldn't have." I know I don't feel comfortable with that. Thanks for your input and keen eye for detail, I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and hope you did too! Peace and good luck!
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

The point is, you can't expect school to prepare you for everything in life; some things really just need to be experienced in order to be learned. For example, can school prepare you on how to deal with losing a loved one? Moreover, school isn't the only educational tool, and it only goes until one is 18 years old (high school that is). Learning doesn't stop when school stops; therefore, it's unnecessary for school to have to teach you everything, especially when it's a much better idea to focus on teaching you the stuff it needs to teach you well.
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

I guess, as with many discussions like this, the aim of it will inevitably shift. My questions to you then is what challenges do we face that couldn't be prepared for in some productive way in the school setting? Where in the school day are such concepts that these challenges highlight not appropriate? This is something I have discussed with many people as I do feel that school should give you all (I know there I go again with all/any/always) the tools necessary to be happy and/or productive human. I guess the goal shifts again and I apologise again... perhaps I should find a discuss.org...
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

Agreed, you are definitely one of the smart ones. It takes a VERY smart person to figure out quickly when he is wrong and to adapt and become smarter. That already makes you smarter than 99% of people. I will say, however, that I read your statement too quickly. (I wish there were an edit button but there isn't. ) "The over arching aim of educators should be to prepare children for any of they challenges they may face in their futures. " I don't agree with the word "any. " Same concept as not agreeing with the word "always" in your previous statements. I think changing "any" to "most" or "the vast majority" would be a far superior argument.
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

I appreciate you highlighting the 'always' in my statement and agree with you to the greater extent regarding the "burn out" effect. I think my poor wording has not conveyed my meaning. I do not intend for school to ever be uninteresting and it is my feeling that most people learn better when they are enjoying what they are doing. With that in mind my thinking would be to base lessons around the challenges we face when we come across any roadblocks to success. For example, a common problem in adult life could be financial planning. My intention is not to hand children a profit and loss spreadsheet, instead construct a task or activity that simulates a similar or parallel difficulty (here I am thinking maybe enhanced version of the game of life) to help build a basic understanding of core concepts. In regards to the arts, they are a vital (in my opinion) part of life and yet the tasks given can still reflect the challenges to be faced. For example I love to make sculptures and stop-motion animations and feel alive when I am being creative but I often find myself either uninspired or demotivated by the day to day hum-drum. This is a challenge i face, so could an art teacher show me how to engender and nurture inspiration and creativity? I agree that school is not the only place of learning in life but for many (particularly those facing difficulty perhaps due to poverty or hardship) it can be the only organised and resource rich environment they encounter and this is why it should always provide the best balance of educational experience (in nutrition, finance, e.t.c). This could even be done through art, using my previous example I may construct a lesson like this: "Can you construct a piece of artwork of your choosing that will help educate people on the subject of healthy eating? your challenge is to take this exhausted topic matter and make something people will pay attention to." If I were given this task I could take my love of stop-motion and make a short film whilst also learning about nutrition. I don't remember doing anything like that at school and feel that it may have benefited me. Instead I remember distinctly being given the task of "Design a website to sell sandwiches to order." This task followed a booklet of instructions and had little creativity within it and a level of hand holding that that I have rarely experienced in my adult life. With your comments taken into account let me amend my statement. "The over arching aim of educators should be to prepare children for any of they challenges they may face in their futures." In my mind this includes any financial hardship, health, social and creative issues. Thoughts? (apologies for being so wordy)