BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US public education system teaches students what free people should know.

Thank you, Boozeandbabble, for taking a part in this conversation. I look forward to exploring our thoughts in more depth as the discussion progresses. My thesis has two main points: 1. Free people of today need to be educated on certain things. -- There are skills that free people must know, such as how to discern truth from fiction, how to tell a "convincing" statistic from a lie, and rather than simply "which partisan to trust" (which is what you'd expect a slave to be educated in), free people need to understand Why to trust one partisan or another, and when and how to call them out as doing something misleading to prevent others from being swayed. 2. The US Education system as it stands, does not sufficiently educate its citizens on these things. -- And it hasn't for a long time; maybe ever. The modern debate, in freakin' 2016, is over "college affordability" and for some, over whether universities "adequately prepare students for the work force". But we are not merely a workforce. We are a free citizenry with duties that go along with that--including not just voting, but participating wisely in the journalism, the conversation, and the voting process. And we don't. College grads can't tell real news from fake. And even the idea of "artes liberales" as in the things free people should know (as opposed to "liberal arts" as a kind of generous smorgasbord of different knowledge skills) ... that idea is for the most part nonexistent.Your thesis, that the government does teach whatever it wants, is actually an excellent point toward what I am saying. Ideally, the government of a nation that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" should be one which is responsive to what the people want. But when is the last time the government did anything that was really what the people wanted? It's just a bunch of rich white dudes doing, for the most part, what rich white dudes want. Occasionally they might throw a little scrap out for the non-rich-white-dude, but the main activity they're doing is taking care of those who are already in power.It's easier to take care of those in power, if you have voters who will believe whatever crap the highest bidder wants them to believe. So why should we expect government-run schools to deliver students who can think critically about disinformation?And when you have a society of people educated to trust someone else to do their thinking for them, you de-facto do not have free people at all. Instead, all you have is a society of people who depend on others to think for them. If we acquiesce to such a dependent mode of thinking, we surrender to slavery of thought, where rather than thinking for ourselves, we are at the whims of the elite ruling class, who we are expected to trust to do the thinking for us.
The US public education system teaches students what free people should know.

I'm taking the Con here. My thesis consists of two main points:1. Free people of today need to be educated on certain things beyond mere "workforce skills".2. The US Education system, does not sufficiently educate its citizens on these things.I don't know a lot about setting up rules, or debating (My credentials are: "I agrue a lot on the Internet") but I'm taking the Con here, and I think what I'd just say is ...Round 1: Thesis / Counter-ThesisRound 2: Initial ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: ClosingThanks for participating!
Public education in America is the death of freedom

Thanks for spending all that time putting together your argument, however the sense I get is that you are for ILLEGAL immigration, no matter what it costs the taxpayers. The taxpayers no longer have freedom here and it is due to attitudes like yours. I am guessing you most likely haven't had to get a real job and pay taxes yet so in reality your argument is based on a naive, politically correct, free lunch sort of morality. You seem to consider America to be a cash cow for everyone on the planet to feed from, even though we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt, and debt is slavery. We are going in debt, with no guarantee of a return, to feed, clothe, educate, and provide health care for people whom a large majority of have paid not one cent to be here, and have blatantly broken our laws for a taste of FREE freedom. Freedom may start with the word free, but it is not about free stuff for anyone that jumps the border, or maybe in your far left, globalist, who gives a damn about the American taxpayers mind, freedom means, "jump the border and get your free stuff!" I am a taxpayer, are you? Will you be a taxpayer, or do you want a job paid for by the taxpayers? On your characterization of my comments as nativism, it is untrue. I very much expect that people coming to this country LEGALLY, have the same rights as everyone else. My family did when they came through Ellis Island LEGALLY in the early 1900's, but once here they had to earn their way, they did not expect that laws would be ignored for their favor just because they moved from a poorer country. Your argument "it's hard to become legal" , says to me that because there is difficulty getting what you covet then it is OK with you to ignore the law. Xenophobe? I'd rather be considered that then a sneaky border jumping tax dollar thief. To conclude my argument I will say this. The public education system has some very smart and hard working individuals, they are the minority. Most pubic school teachers I had were in the profession for the benefits, good pay, lots of vacation, job security, and massive benefits. They were not there to increase America's standing in the world, they embodied the words "liberal guilt". This sense of liberal guilt pervades the school systems in America and many children are fed that BS on a daily basis. America is not the scourge of the world, and certainly the taxpayers are not cash cows to be milked for the gain of selfish border jumpers. Just try that approach in Mexico and see what kind of education you receive for free.
Public education in America is the death of freedom

Thank you for the opportunity to debate. The fact is that with the federal government mandating policies such as Common Core while at the same time placing barriers on charter schools, the children of citizens in this country are being indoctrinated with values that come from the government, and not values that come from good parents. How can the parent of an illegal immigrant child be considered good and deserving of the high cost of the education their child will receive? Notice I said children of citizens, the point of that being that we the taxpayers, those that pay for the public schools, are forced to pay for the education of children that come here illegally to reap the rewards of their rotten parents decision to pass the burden to the American taxpayer. What seems to be the common mentality behind these decisions is liberal guilt, although factually, there are more wealthy liberals that have made their money through their ability to utilize the legal system to gain advantage for themselves, and those they would make the real taxpaying Americans support. There can be no argument that the vast majority of the public school administration is of the left wing, to varying degrees, highly liberal mindset, and notice please that they all receive their paycheck from money confiscated from the taxpayers. The far left loves to take their taxpayer paycheck and then turn around a look at the taxpayers and say "see how lucky you are, these poor folks that never paid a nickel of taxes deserve that too, so pay up!" This has made the American taxpayer a slave to the public school system, and that is certainly not freedom.
Death Penalty

I believe the death penalty is necessary in some cases. In some cases, the murderer will never stop killing. There is nothing that they will not to do get out of jail and kill again. If the prisoner is clearly a serial killer or is clearly mentally insane(sometimes serial killers are declared sane), it is safer for the rest of us if the person is dead. Why should the government spend tons of money on making sure the dangerous person is kept bound when there is always a chance they will get out instead of just killing them? We are wasting time and money that way, plus it is dangerous for the rest of us. If they do more bad than good in being alive after committing a crime then they should be killed. Most prisoners are not dangerous or insane enough not to be able to do good things for our country like make license plates or doing other work like that. The prisoners that are too dangerous to do those things should just be taken out of the way as a danger to society.
God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will.

As such Pro in order to make his case must use added premises to get from point A to point B. But what are those premises and should we accept them ? and even if we do accept them do they logically entail the conclusion ? I don't think so and I will now explain why. Consider Pros premises that state. .. .. .. .. . 3. God knows I will choose A as my final decision in that choice. 4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge. 5 . From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B as final outcome of a choice. Hang on how did Pro go from Gods KNOWLEDGE that Pro will choose A to therefore Pro has NO CHOICE but to choose A ? . Pro makes an unjustified leap here. Even if Pro chooses A, and even if God knows Pro will choose A before it happens (from Pros point of view) that does not prove that Pro could not have chosen B. You could of chosen B. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .but you won't. Considering the following thought experiment. .. .. .. .. . There is no all knowing God, and assume free will exists, you go to the fridge, in the fridge is a Pepsi and a coke, you choose one, in this case a coke. Consider the same situation but an all knowing God exists, you choose the coke. Does the fact that God knew before you knew you would choose the coke mean that free will suddenly disappears or is logical incompatible with the existence of an all knowing God ? no. Consider another thought experiment. .. .. .. . Again no God and you go to the fridge, coke or pepsi, after staring into the fridge for a bit you take the coke. Consider the same situation but this time an inter dimensional alien life form called Bob exists. The thing about Bob is, is that he has the ability to slide back and forth on our time continuum as he pleases. So you choose the coke, but Bob already knew that before you did, you see he leaped ahead 30 seconds to see what you were going to do. Does the fact that Bob knew what you were going to do before you did it some how negate the existence choice ? no. The moral of the story here is that knowledge of a free will decision before it happens (from the person making that decisions point of view) and what it will be is compatible with the existence of free will. Closing comments Pros argument rests on a faulty assumption, that in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a free will choice will be before it happens. I look forward to Pros reply.
God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will.

Thanks for accepting Con. Opening argument: Here are 5 premises and conclusion. For the Con it is necessary to prove that at least one premise is false so that the conclusion is false.1. A being with free will,given two options A and B,can freely choose between A and B.2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).3. God knows I will choose A as my final decision in that choice.4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.5 .From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B as final outcome of a choice. Conclusion: From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.Following Argument 1I do not claim that God foreknowing something causes you do act that particular way. Its enough to know what will definitely be chosen prior to "action" in order to leave "actor" unable to choose anything else.Following Argument 2Usually people say that the problem is assuming that premise 5 necessarily follows. I do not understand how does the invoking of necessity change anything. If I cannot choose what I wont choose and what God knows I wont choose then there is no free will for me. If there is a definite knowledge of my final decision of any choice I make prior to me making that choice ( that is foreknowledge which means "to realize beforehand" ), then my decision is known before I decide it. So no free will for me.I'm gonna leave it here for now. Good luck to Con.
God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will.

Common 4 round debate structure. Round 1: Acceptance of debate and definitions.Round 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Final conclusion ( no new arguments ) Definitions :Omniscience - is the capacity to know everything. (Omniscient - All knowing ; having infinite knowledge ) Free will - The ability to choose between different possible courses of action. If you don't agree with definitions don't accept. Voting rule - Voters will not vote in spelling and grammar category since I don't want grammar to make any difference in the outcome. Any vote in S&G will be taken down by moderator.Good luck to Con.
Why don't people want to believe in God

In my opinion, evolution is logical and proved. No one has truly falsified evolution in a scientific sense. I had read books from Dr. Kent but they don't seem as conclusive as Darwin's ones. " except for micro evolution"This really surprise me everytime I hear It. Micro evolution and Macro evolution are terms invented way after Darwin's theory. The Darwinian evolution does not make this differentiation. However, if you want to talk in those terms, if micro evolution exist, macro evolution has to exist too. Add up lots of micro evolution steps and you will have a macro evolution step. ". It to me baffles logic that something so amazing design such as the universe, the human eye/body can come from random chance. "Well, but applying that logic where does god come from? God is way more complex than the human body, so he needs a creator too. I got intrigued by on of your questions. You said you were a born again Christian who loves . .. .. But that does not define you at all. I mean, you are a body or a mind? Matter, spirit or both? " I disagree energy needs to be created like for example fire it doesn'tstart by itself it needs someone to ignite it. "What I said was not a metaphorical statement, but a scientific one. Energy is not created, just transformed. Taking the fire example, energy is not being created. The energy needed to start a fire comes from the thing that ignites it. For instance, if you light a fire with two sticks, you rub them generating friction. That friction causes the sticks to release some of their energy. That energy causes the start of the fire. " I believe that energy doesn't form into anything. "Actually, matter is energy. Matter is formed by energy. I mean, matter is atoms. Atoms are protons electrons an neutrons. Those are formed by quarks. Finally, quarks are just an energy wave. Then, matter is an energy wave, nothing more than that. Great debate! Hope to have more debates like this one. Love for everyone!
Why don't people want to believe in God

I think God is the beginning and he is the end of the universe and all that exists within it. I don't believe in the big bang aka evolution, except for micro evolution which happens for many reasons; 1. When there is evidence it's "always" disproved. 2. It to me baffles logic that something so amazing design such as the universe, the human eye/body can come from random chance. If you would like to hear some of my opinions on contradictions on the topic I would highly suggest you watch this video at least 5-10 minutes. Btw when you see the title please don't be offended it's just the best video I know on the topic. https://youtu.be... It is true people do get angry on the topic of Christianity for no reason just like the bible says. And very true. John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. I was hoping you'd ask me that. 1. Who am I? I am a born again Christian who loves God: you the people reading this debate and the people who don't with all my Heart. 2.Why am I here? To love everyone as God loves me obey his laws, and live in peace and harmony. 3.Where do I come from? I come from a creator who loves me and you very much and wants us to live a happy and loving life. 4. Where do I go when I die Well because I am a born again Christian I will go to heaven and live in happiness forever! Well I disagree energy needs to be created like for example fire it doesn'tstart by itself it needs someone to ignite it. And when we die I believe that it cannot create anything because a dead body is a waste product and the only time. And I believe that energy doesn't form into anything. If you're not sure why you're here who you are or/and where you go when you die why don't you repeat these words out loud. Dear God I'm not sure whether you exist can you reveal yourself to me show me your presence, show me your love reveal yourself to me in Jesus name Amen This is thiest 1998 signing off I love all with the love of God and stay bless.
Why don't people want to believe in God

"You can't go before the beginning."Why? I mean, every beginning is caused by something, and everything has a beginning. So there must be something before our universe. That's why I believe in the cyclical nature of existence. Every universe has a beginning and an end, and when one ends another starts, the big bang and the big crunch."btw you're very polite for an atheist. The most polite I've ever met." Well thanks hahaha. I feel this discussion about the existence of god and the truth value of the Christian god generates a lot of hate. People don't tolerate that other have different opinions. So when you find two people arguing about this in a respectful way you get quite surprised. "One more thing what are your answers on these questions?"This questions are pretty interesting, I would like to here your own opinion about these.1) Who am I?Well, I could say that I'm my body, but that's not true. My body is separated form myself, my body is just a "tool".Then I could say that I'm my emotions, but that's not true. Emotions fade away. I feel emotions, I'm not emotions.Maybe I could say that I'm my thoughts, but that's false. I have thoughts, I'm not them.Then, what's left? Consciousness. I'm pure consciousness. I'm the one who has thoughts and feels emotions and dictates what to do to my body. I'm a consciousness. The only indubitable thing to me is that my conchies exists.2) Why am I here?The simple question would be because my parents had sex. But that's not your question, you are talking about what's my purpose here.I had different thought about this throughout my life. Nowadays, I believe in the purposelessness. If you observe nature It has no purpose. You watch birds go twee twee twee, what's the purpose of that? You can say that it is a mate calling, quite purposeful. But why they need that? You can say "because they need to survive". But why they need to survive. And there's where answers are gone. Then, nature is indeed purposeless. Is this bad? No. For example, music is purposeless. You don't dance to that nice song with an aim, you just do it for fun.If everything around us is purposeless, why we should be purposeful? I believe we should be purposeless, we should live life just enjoying, without any pretension.3) Where do I come from?Again, the simple answer would be from my mother's inside. But you don't want that answer. You are asking where humanity come from?Well, this time the answer is simpler. We are the product of natural selection, we are like this because of evolution.4) Where do I go when I die?We are basically energy. We are formed by energy. When we die our energy returns to the universe. This means, energy was used to create us, so when we die our energy is used to create others.Energy is not created, energy is just transformed. So the energy that forms us now was previously forming other stuff. Then, when we stop to exist, our energy will form other stuff.Thanks for the love, I appreciate it. Love to you too! Cheers!
Why don't people want to believe in God

At onepoint during David's Koresh's life he said it is time to kill God's faithfuls so I very much doubt he was a believe just because he grew up in the church doesn't mean he's accepted the faith. What's wrong with communism. God has always been around there has. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1. KJV You can't go before the beginning. It's more logical to say that we just came from outta nowhere. btw you're very polite for an atheist. The most polite I've ever met. One more thing what are your answers on these questions? 1.Who am I? 2.Why am I here? 3.Where do I come from? 4. Where do I go when I die? Have a nice Day God bless and I Love You with the Love of God :)
Why don't people want to believe in God

" I'm saying without God some people have no basis for their morality and do very bad example Paul pot, Hitler, Stalin "I know those people were bad, but not because they were atheist. I can give you a large list of people who was/is bad and still believe in God. For instance, David Koresh was a great believer but he killed like 80 innocent people. Actually, the World's Most Prolific Serial Killers are Devout Christians (http://king-dave.newsvine.com...). Then, morality is not about religion, but about rationalism. If you are an irrational being you will lack of morality, doesn't matter if you believe or not in god.As a side note, you mentioned comunist dictators, and as a matter of fact, comunism was founded by jewish and christians." If you want to believe in things that are logical then why don't you believe in God because if you're an atheist which means you think that there is no God which means you believe that we just came here out of nothing from nowhere." I can logically disagree with this. Your argument is basically this: all things came from somewhere, then we must came from somewhere, that somewhere is our creator: God. This is a very intuitive argument but is flawed. If you say that everything that exist must have a creator, and then you say god exists, then god must have a creator. But god can't have a creator, that would contradict his nature. As you can see, this argument is self defeating."I think you need to rethink about your Faith in my totally honest, humbled and unbiased opinion on the topic"Thanks for worrying but, as you can see, I rethought this a lot, and I have reached to these conclusions. Also, I don't have a faith, cause faith is opinion without reasoning, and I always search for opinions with logical arguments behind.Interesting debate so far, very polite to be a religious one. Cheers!
Why don't people want to believe in God

I'm not saying morality can't exist without God I'm saying without God some people have no basis for thier morality and do very bad example Paul pot, Hitler, stalin ect and just because you think you can be good without God doesn't mean everything you are doing that isn't correct everyday things that you may think is fine but isn't. If you want to believe in things that are logical then why don't you believe in God because if you're an athiest which means you think that there is no God which means you believe that we just came here out of nothing from nowhere. It's like me saying the pyramids appeared out of thin air nobody built them there is no record of people building them and the stones are so heavy no even modern technology can lift the stones let alone drag them and stack them on top of each other in precise order. And you know what I just said made no sense because a pyramid is not a natural accuring building that appears out of nowhere just like the world, and the universe so complex and beautiful and you think it came out of nowhere. I think you need to rethink about your Faith in my totally honest, humbled and unbiased opinion on the topic