BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education is Development of the person

The purpose of education is development of the person. When one is taught and knowledge is then attained, that knowledge is the intellectual development of the person. This development is important for maintaining life, economic prosperity, and so forth. Hirsch, an American educator, advocates that universal literacy is a necessity in life because it leads to effective communication. Hirsch believes literacy is the basis for many changing tasks, which is an important component in the development of the person. Hirsch states, "Ultimately, our aim should be to attain universal literacy at a very high level, to achieve not only greater economic prosperity but also social justice and more effective democracy." (1.2) Once literacy is properly taught, individuals are able to retain much information about what they read and hear because they have an understanding of it through background information. "We know instinctively that to understand what somebody is saying, we must understand more than the surface meanings of words; we have to understand the context as well. The need for background information applies all the more to reading and writing. To grasp the words on a page we have to know a lot of information that isn't set down on the page." (2.3) This is considered the development of the person because being literate allows individuals to operate as well rounded citizens. Literacy shapes individuals into knowledgeable human beings thus proving that the purpose of education is development of the person.
Do you think school is bad or a whole lot of work

You are just taking garbage. First of all school is not that bad, its okay but some schools have different cinducts. For example some of the schools in the USA are very good. There standerds are good and there technology is good Assuming you weren't some kind of freak prodigy, you probably looked to final exam season with a deep sense of dread. Once a semester, each teacher threw enough study guides, handouts, and notes at your class to provoke a scoliosis epidemic from the backpack weight alone. Then, after a week (or one God-awful night) of late-night cramming and stress seizures, you proceeded to brain-puke everything you'd learned that year onto one last son-of-a-bitch of a test that was worth 20 percent of your grade. Also it depends on how bad your grades are in high school and also how you did on the SAT or ACT. Most colleges are concerned about students who have not done well in their high school courses. They often suggest you attend a community college first and do a semester or two there to prove you are capable of college level work. If you are successful there, it is not difficult to transfer to any number of good schools. It doesn't hurt to apply to colleges that seem somewhat realistic for you, but make sure you have at least one or two good safety schools. I work with students who have not always done well in high school and many have gone on to be very successful in college. And there are way more reasons.!!!!!
If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

Pro begins, "So according to you, you should win because you posted some links." That is a fallacious straw man of my arguments [1]. He is misrepresenting my contentions to make my case easier to attack. I never said that "posting some links" should qualify as an automatic win. In fact my arguments were: 1. Sources are useful criteria for judging A. Sources give credibility to asserted claims B. Research teaches additional arguments from other knowledgeable people 2. Debaters willingly accept this criteria A. The debater has the opportunity to change that voting standard and eliminate it entirely B. Because almost all claims can be sourced (or can have additional information provided), there isn't an excuse to not provide any 3. Debaters have the opportunity to adjust A. If they see their opponent using sources, they should too since it's a legitimate voting criteria that is both useful and pre-accepted Pro continues, "Even if I give back some good argument, you should get the point for sources." Once again, I never said that. If one debater makes superior arguments, they should win the point for arguments. If one debater uses superior sources in both quantity, quality and utility - they should win the points for sources, especially if their opponent did not use any. But if one debater used sources (while the other did not) though abused them or used them ineffectively, i.e. through plagiarism, lack of relevance, etc., then no that person should not automatically win sources points. Pro's resolution is based on absolute standards whereas none should exist, hence why he is having such a hard time fulfilling his burden. Pro asks, "Suppose I just check up the definition of a word on google and put it as a source..." In that case, it would signal to the judges that one person at least tried to include sources if their opponent did as a sign of due diligence. However if you only used sources to cite definitions and not information, that might be a sign to the judges that you do not deserve sources points and your opponent does. Again it depends on the debate. Sometimes sourcing definitions is very important to a debate. Sometimes one debater uses sources while the other does not, but uses the sources for frivolous reasons and in those cases the judge can vote in their favor or as a tie. Pro states, "Providing points just for using a source isn't fair." My arguments #1-3 explain why it's fair judging criteria. Please extend. And finally Pro concludes that sourcing research shouldn't be weighted more heavily than knowledge one can provide off-hand. However while it's useful to be able to recite information, judges, your opponent and the audience need to verify your claims which is why sources are useful and often imperative to a debate. Thank you, everyone. [1] http://rationalwiki.org...
If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

So according to you, you should win because you posted some links. Even if I give back some good argument, you should get the point for sources. I don't have much to say here, but it ain't just voting. Suppose I just check up the definition of a word on google and put it as a source, while the other opponent knows better English and doesn't need google dictionaries, the one who used the source should get the point. I state such scenarios because these kind of scenarios are happening at debate. org. I believe this site should be a fair place where the best debater wins. Providing points just for using a source isn't fair.
If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

Pro asks, "But shouldn't it be up to the debater who used the source to discredit the other debater's claims?" Indeed it is up to the debaters to discredit their opponent's sources, however if one used sources effectively and one did not, the judges should be able to determine this on their own. In fact that's part of being a judge. Pro notes that many topics have limited research capabilities, and so long as the information in the debate is correct, sources shouldn't be a factor. However I've argued that professional, peer-reviewed research based on substantial qualitative and quantitative data is more valuable for establishing truth than merely stating an opinion. Moreover sources are also what establishes that the information is correct in the first place. Without sources, the audience has no reason to accept it as such. While not every debate has information that CAN be researched, many debates do, and those debaters who effectively use sources should be rewarded vs. their opponents who choose not to. Even debates rooted in opinion can utilize sources. The judges can/should decide if the debater made an effort to provide information that was useful to the debate, or gave credibility to the debater's case somehow. In research there is hard information and soft information. "Hard research describes scientific and objective research, where math, figures, statistics, evidence and proven facts are absolutely critical. Hard research expectations apply to anything that is scientific, medical, or legal, or when the topic is going to result in lofty philosophical claims, organizational policy, or have large-scale political impact... Soft research describes topics that are more subjective, cultural, and opinion-based. Soft research depends less on facts and evidence and more on the presentation skill of the researcher. Soft research sources will be less scrutinized by the readers" [1]. Combined soft and hard research is hybrid research. You can indeed use sources even to argue for or against opinions [2]. [1] http://netforbeginners.about.com... [2]
If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

"Therefore if one debater provides a source whereas the other does not, the person without sources has no way of proving that their arguments are rooted in legitimate facts." But shouldn't it be up to the debater who used the source to discredit the other debater's claims? And many topics have limited research capabilities, such as war scenarios and movie debates. Suppose in a movie debate, say Iron Man vs Captain America, I didn't know about Iron Man's Mark 44 and I googled it and put the source. My opponent had already watched the movies and read the comics and didn't need to use sources. As long as the information put is correct, shouldn't the source point be tie? It is unfair for the opponent, and people may just post unuseful but reliable links to be on the safe side.
If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. 1. Sources are useful criteria for judging 2. Debaters willingly accept this criteria 3. Debaters have the opportunity to adjust When each debater makes their case, they often rely on citing facts for relevance. In order to prove the facts are correct, sources are presented which allows the opponent and the audience/judges to validate the debater's claims. If the claims are incorrect or misrepresented, their opponent has the opportunity to highlight this infraction and use it against them. Research is important to debate. Formal debaters agree of the advantages in capitalizing on the prestige of an authority who shares your argument, and may verbalize it better than you can [1]. If a judge does not feel that a debater has proven their alleged facts (through lack of sources), or if a judge feels that one has abused their sources via plagiarism, they should be able to vote on that accordingly. Similarly judges might want to vote on the quality of one's sources. For example professional, peer-reviewed research based on substantial qualitative and quantitative data is more valuable for establishing truth than merely stating an opinion [2]. Therefore if one debater provides a source whereas the other does not, the person without sources has no way of proving that their arguments are rooted in legitimate facts. As you can see, sources are a useful criteria for both debating and judging standards. Before accepting a debate challenge, each debater has the opportunity to see the voting standards for each debate. If they do not wish sources to qualify as a point for substance, the debater has the opportunity to change that voting standard and eliminate it entirely, or refuse to accept a debate until that standard is removed. By choosing to accept a debate that judges sources, each debater can reasonably expect to be scored on their use (or lack thereof) of sources. If one debater chooses to use sources, it should signal the opponent to include sources in their case as well. While sources are not necessary to make an argument, they provide a reference for where the debater's information is coming from. When one debater chooses to include a reference for validation and the other does not, the judge might reward the debater who provided that additional information in good faith for fact checking. Considering each debater has the opportunity to adjust and include sources per their opponent's use of sources, it is their responsibility to adjust to that standard if they expect to be judged on similar factors. Each judge has different values and some do not believe sources are important. However for those that do (with good reason) they should be allowed to penalize someone for not providing any references, vs. someone who does include references considering sources were a known standard for judgment in the debate. [1] https://sites.google.com... [2] http://www.skepticalraptor.com...
If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

It has often happened that one debater hasn't used a source and made decent arguments, and another has used a source and made more or less equally strong arguments. In that case in a 7 point voting system the point for reliability of sources should be tied as the other opponent made a good argument without a source, which is a good skill as well. Just because one used a source doesn't mean that one should be allowed to win the debate for doing the meager task of pasting a relevant link.
In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, Deism logically precedes Theism.

I assert that Theism isn't logically preceded by Deism in this regard, but that Deism and Theism are equally basic possibilities. For the purpose of this debate, we will assume that the Big Bang is the factual way in which the universe was created/formed. It is also understood that the resolution is not discussing chronological or historical emergence of either concept.Deist is understood to be a God who created the universe but doesn't intervene in the course of events.Theist is understood to be a God who created the universe and directly intervenes in the course of events.R1 - AcceptanceR2 - Opening ArgumentsR3 - Rebuttals/New ArgumentsR4 - Rebuttals/Conclusion
In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, Deism logically precedes Theism.

I will start by showing the problem with my opponent's main logical progression. 1. We have established the need for a cause, namely for the big bang theory. 2. Any proposed cause shall come under one of the two aforementioned categories. For the purposes of the resolution, we are moving forward with the assumption that the cause is supernatural by nature. 3. As, for arguments sake, we have proceeded with the assumption that a supernatural force/entity is subsequently responsible for the creation of the universe, we have now arrived at deism.The problem is at 3. My opponent asserts that a supernatural force/entity being responsible for creation of the universe refers to Deism. In other words, Deism is the belief in a supernatural force/entity which created the universe.However, this is an incorrect definition for Deism as I have shown. Deism is the belief of a creator who doesn't directly intervene in the course of events in the universe.[1] Without the characteristic of non-intervention, we simply have the belief in a creator. Theism is the belief in a creator as well, so Deism and Theism both fit the bill for argument 3.-----Absence of trait vs. trait-----My opponent mistakenly thinks that non-interventionist isn't a trait, but is the absence of the trait of being interventionist. The fact of the matter is, without any trait, God would be neither interventionist, nor non-interventionist.Let's look at this from the point of view of another trait. A person can be kind, or unkind(simplification, but it works for illustrative purposes). You can say that being unkind is simply the absence of being kind, but an unkind person has the trait of being unkind.Similarly, a non-interventionist God has the characteristic of being non-interventionist.My opponent re-asserts that a supernatural creator = Deism, but has done nothing other than state it as fact, with no basis or source. I have shown this to be false, so this claim must be rejected.Deism positively asserts that God isn't certain things. God isn't an interventionist, so Deism has defined one trait of God: non-interventionist. A Deist could learn that God is blue, and still be Deist. But, if a Deist learned that God is an interventionist, the concept of Deism would no longer apply, and that person would be a Theist. Therefore, Deism is founded on the principle of non-interventionism.In conclusion, Deism and Theism both fulfill the need of a supernatural creator that my opponent has proposed in his own arguments. As such, Deism and Theism are on equal ground, and neither is predicated upon the other in this sense. [1]http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it

The federal government in 2009 paid $45.4 billion to the United States Department of Education, granted not all goes to public schools, but a large amount does. This amount also doesn't include state and local funding, 1million is a small amount compared to 45.4 billion. This sports facility also supports all sports such as soccer, track, football, and many more. It is also a small amount to pay considering how sports is so good for our social, metal and physical health. Schools giving kids steroids? From what I've researched there hasn't been one school where steroids were administered by school administration. Most schools test for not only steroid use but drug use. If schools have given steroids to kids, it has been in such isolated cases where there isn't a major problem so much so that the news hasn't covered it, and has been fixed. You use an examples that aren't supported by any factual story or evidence. You failed to present any outside sources except from your bias experiences. And I re-enforce the word bias, seeing that you are 16, still in high school and probably uninvolved with school activity's. Also your bias is wrong, you come from Broken Arrow Oklahoma where there have been - Meth Labs: 4 - Ice Meth: 379 Grams - Cocaine(Crack/Powder): 119 oz - Marijuana: 19lbs, 9oz, 46 Plants Seized and only "107" arrests from drugs/gun/money charges. You come from a town with little to no drug use or crime. Leading me to believe you have no real experience with drugs/steroids/crime. Making your personal experiences (The only "evidence" you gave in this argument) false. When it boils down athletics are a highly important part of our society, especially in times of obesity and overall unhealthy children. High schools athletics have given teens a extra curricular activity after school to not only occupy them but keep them out of trouble and healthy. If anything we should increase the sports programs to expand our teens health and life experiences. Because high school sports don't just positively effect teens in the present but for the future and it does this by instilling life lessons and usable skills within their character. This whole argument my opponent has preached that I have failed to support my argument. But, read in detail, she provides no factual evidence and brings up mythical stories about schools administering steroids to our children. I challenge the readers to research the topic themselves and to find out just how unstable her argument is. Sources: http://www.brokenarrowok.gov... ===> Broken Arrow Police Department Statistics. http://www.news-medical.net... ===> High Schools & Drug testing. http://en.wikipedia.org... ===> 2009 Federal budget.
high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it

It is because of over attention to high school athletics that we are getting into such deficits. You state that all the money you get is from fundraising, yet after research i found that at least 20 counties in several states have spent almost $1 million dollars on some kind of sports facility, that they already have, just not as huge and good. $1 million dollars did not come from fundraisers and football games. You are correct to much is a matter of opinion so let me clarify what i meant and give some examples: By to much, i meant that more emphasis is put on athletics than is on academics. One example is: Several high schools have been caught giving thier athletes steroids, now you may be tempted to make the argument that this is a problem that is only the coach, but the player has to want to take the steroid to actually use them. If schools are willing to give thier students steroids to win the big game, dont you think they will be more than willing to boost an athletes grade so he can play? The fact that the administration is willing to let this happen, is actually very relevant. Your foundation is understandable, but shaky at best. It is my personal opinion that you may be biased on the subject. but thank you for your arguments
high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it

Most of your previous argument was off topic and attacked the state spending rather then school athletics. School athletics get minimal funding from the government and actually have to create revenue themselves via fund raising and sports games. If you are worried about the deficit/low budget of your school then you should fund raise(or voice your opinion to your senator), because this is what high school athletes do for their athletic departments. Your argument is: "high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it", the problem in this argument is finding out how much is to much? Too much is when the kids only focus is athletics and not passing with a 2.0+. And there are rules/laws against this, so athletes who play actually find time to do both school and athletics. Now Arguing the competence and trustworthiness of a teacher/administration is a who other argument that is based on teaching standards and qualifications and have little relevance to this argument. Also I did the research and found schools ranging from middle to high from all around the country that require a 2.0 or higher (And none that don't).
high school athletics have to much emphasis put on it

I do agree that sports teaches you valuable skills, and that it does gain alot of money. But the problem is, with the money the athletic department has gained, it all goes back to the athletic department. My school is only allowed 1000 printoffs for each teacher, but while our education is being limited by the amounts of copies we are allowed to have, billions of dollars are being spent on a unneeded training area for athelets. That money could be used for the following A: Allow teachers to make more copiess so we dont spend the entire hour having to listen to and understand a test that normally would take about ten minutes B: Other clubs that also teach how to lead and how to follow, sports arent the only things that matter C: Make the school system able to give better supplies to the students so they can get a better education. My opponent makes the argument that it should be reported if athletes are given special privleges, but i myself have done so, and with sports bein so popular they just blew it off saying i was being over dramatic. And finally, my opponent fails to realize that sports are not the only thing that matters to people. I have found that around my school more people are actually interested in academics than sports, all except for those who associate with sports. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to disprove how high school athletics have way to much attention paid to them. Thank you