BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

Final tests are all about what you learned, what you know, and whether or not you need to repeat the class or a grade if you fail. It honestly does more helping more than you recognize; you just admitted that taking a final in passing classes would help you and not bring you down: "I haven't checked the grades yet. But those are the only two grades that i would need to bring up. I think that taking the final in those classes would help me a lot because of how we are prepared for it all"-proIt caught my eye by how you said "we are prepared for it all". Just from telling me that you have a majority of A's I can tell that you are a very intelligent (and stressed out) girl. If a student is able to have A/B honors they have the capability to do finals. Besides, finals are mostly questions that teachers already gave you during regular tests and quizzes. If a student does a self-study and look over all their previous test - if they saved it - they will ace the finals and classes in flying colors. I completely agree with you on how schools should break down weeks to review what they learned (most schools do), but unfortunately not all schools do that (including yours seemingly), that is why students need to ask their teachers if they can tutor them during after school hours, unless they already have after school tutoring. Finals are truly beneficiary to students, acing, failing and passing.
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

I can understand where you are coming from, but i know that most people can be on an A/B honor roll and there can even be a solid C honor roll (depending on the school). I have a majority of A's a few B's one C- and a D. the D was because i had missed a test and i had just finished it yesterday. I haven't checked the grades yet. But those are the only two grades that i would need to bring up. I think that taking the final in those classes would help me a lot because of how we are prepared for it all. But i also thing that because they are all (basically) in the same week, it stresses a lot of people out a lot more than it should, I believe that we should take the last 7 weeks of school and have that time to prepare for each final we need to take. one week could be for all math classes the next for all science classes etc.. But those (like myself) get stressed out way too easily when a ton of things are thrown at you all at once. I already have started workin on two of seven of my finals (speech and spanish) They aren't difficult to do or to work on, but we have to do them on our chrome books, and they will be taking them up next tuesday.. that doesn't give up much time to really work on them if they are huge projects. and I'm passing those classes with (for me) good grades. That's why i don't see why we need to take them. we could be more focused on the classes we need to work on more instead of the other classes that we are passing already.
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

I think students (including you) still in high school and passing should take finals because they, just like you said, are only passing your classes (A's,B's,C's, and D's) and not acing them (A's, A's, and more A's). High schoolers who are acing their classes work a little bit harder and understand more than other students who are passing. Take myself for example. I've been to 3 different high schools; in the first I was ranked number 3 in over 300 other kids in my school; in the second I was in the top 10; and in the third I was ranked number 6 in over 500 other students and graduated with a 4.6 GPA. In most of my schools I didn't have to take finals because of my acing. In other words, students who are passing should take finals due to there being students who only pass classes because they don't care about getting into a great college, have problems and need extra help, or want to avoid repeating a grade. I'm not accusing you of any of these things, I'm just listing the reasons why students who are passing their classes should take finals and students who are acing them shouldn't.
Can education redress lack of right upbringing

Being "well mannered" is not something that is generally gained through the educative system as it is often built up or brought down by personal experiences and not academic education. Education is a system that was made in order to assist people to know how to do something like how to build a house or how to program a computer, education does not however focus as much on teaching how to be well mannered, polite and kind. Being well mannered is generally gained through your experiences with the community and those who are closest to you, if a family member neglects you you may grow to be resentful and have trouble trusting people if however you are nurtured by your friends and family you are more likely to have a positive outlook on life and be more "well mannered". This is how someone's manner can be built up or brought down.
Obama is the Antichrist

I believe Obama is the Antichrist. Surely you have heard about the Obama=Satan conspircy going around, but I believe this to be true because- Obama has publicly mocked the Bible. "Or should we follow Deuteronomy and stone our children?"- Barack Obama The description for the Antichrist says he will mock God's word. Obama and the Lottery. The day after Obama's election, the Illinois lottery ran these numbers. Pick 3: 666 Pick 4: 7779 666 is the number of man and devil. It represents the symbol of Satan- a 6 sided star, a 6 sided triangle, and a 6 sided hexagon place over each other, a mockery of Israel's flag. Thud, 666 represents Satan and evil. 777. The number 7 is often shown through the Bible. In the original Hebrew, 7 references to the number 7 are made in Genesis 1:1! Google it if you don't believe me. 777 would represent God's perfect completion. 9 is a number stated to be God's wrath. Many objects in Revelation correspond with 9. So 666=Satan. 777=Perfection. 9=God's wrath. So we have Satan, God's wrath on perfection. This was held by the Illinois lottery, remember, which Obama claims is his home state. Obama and Dictatorship. We disposed of a dictator named Saddam Hussein in 2000-something. Then the next president we get has (get this) Barack Hussein Obama as his name. WTF? Is this a coincidence? A conspiracy theorist at the lottery HQ? Divine intervention?
Obama is the Antichrist

Thanks for the well-written argument, Johnicle. Though I expected the opponent to be a Christian... First, I will comment on each of these qualifiers you have used as descriptions for the Antichrist that Obama could match. He will rise to power over 3 and then 10 nations. He will bring peace, yet conquer through treaties and war. The United Nations could very well bring this about. If Obama rose to a position of power in a powerful organization like the UN, he could offer treaties that brought him control over 3 and then 10 nations. He will be very popular around the world. Obama doesn't have the overwhelming support of everyone (including me), but he is the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world. Thus, he is popular in a sense, even if not well liked. He will be charismatic and physically attractive. Obama is charismatic. His slogan YES WE CAN, whenever said, is repeated by crowds across the nation. That's charisma. And Obama is physically attractive, with full, smooth skin and a lean, tall body. He will require a Mark Of The Beast to buy or sell. This "Mark Of The Beast" is already being popularized in Asia. It is conceivable that during the Obama administration (especially if Barack Obama is re-elected) the Mark would meet success in the North American region as well. Also note that Obama has the ability to achieve all the points you have written so far. You have not mentioned anything that could be theoretcally unappliable to Obama. Source: Revelations You said, "The Bible also talks about how the Antichrist will lead a group of horsemen. Since we have yet to see a verified Antichrist, it is entirely possible that since cavalry were, at one time, the supreme forces, and thus "horsemen" might stand for tanks. Source: The Big Book of Weapons Charles may mean "man," but "man" can be used to mean a woman, a creature, and in many cases, is. In no way does "man" mean a demon or devil. Source: Webster's Unabridged Dictionary "And the dragon gave him power and great authority." The dragon is a staple of British hubris, and has been for centuries. A dragon symbolizes bravery and a desire to do what is right. This comes from the old knight-slays-dragon tales. Source: Wikipedia How can we prove that the other rumors are true? It is very possible that someone started lies to attack Charles even further after the adultery scandal was proven. Source: Me First, it is possible to err on lineage charts. Thus, it is possible that Prince Charles is not truly the eighth of the seventh. Second, how do we know it is referring to Great Britain and not France or another such area? Source: Wikipedia Prince Charles coat of arms was designed using guidelines over 500 years old. You did not say that Charles designed his own satanic coat of arms. Thus, perhaps it was a conspiracy theorist in the British College of Heraldry and not Charles's own design. Source: You And Me Illinois Lottery- I dunno. I meant that as a way of defining the conspiracy, and it IS unlikely God would have spoken to us like this. Finally, of course it's a conspiracy. I posted it because I like conspiracies. The Godhand
Medicare in the U.S should be able to negotiate with private drug (pharma) companies.

Alternatively, private pharmaceutical companies should be abolished and the state should provide medical care for its people without capitalism and profit as a motive for companies to raise prices and such. However, that is in many ways a whole different topic.Regardless, I am interested as to what the benefits that supposedly carry more weight than the negatives are, in order for me to form a better argument against your position.
Medicare in the U.S should be able to negotiate with private drug (pharma) companies.

This is the full King La Ding sponsored resolution: Medicare in the U.S is barred by the Medicare drug benefit passed in 2003 from negotiating prices of pharmaceuticals with private companies, King La Ding contends as pro that Medicare should be able to negotiate with private companies, because the benefits outweigh the negatives. They were bouncing in the street. Not the chicken just the feet.
Evolution vs creation

For the final round, I will include a few rebuttals and bring in some new points.You claim that since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. This is true (in fact, purely common sense) but it does not assist in the argument against the Big Bang nor against evolution. The BBT accounts for the creation of the universe just as well as, if not better than, Creationism. It even has the reasoning of science supporting it.If the Bible was to be taken literally, then God created the universe and everything in it in a matter of 6 days (excluding the day for rest). If this was true, then all of the stars would basically be the same age and they would be in the same stage of existence. This, however, is not true. There are stars which are far older than others. Some have been around so long that they have actually gone supernova. Now, if you go with the idea of the BBT, then it only makes sense that we are just now seeing stars which are billions of light-years away go supernova. If God made the universe in only 6 days, there would be multiple stars ending their life cycle at the same exact time. In fact, the universe has to be billions of years old in order for us to see the after effects of the supernova explosion.In support of the BBT, our telescopes can see into deep space and find things there which reveal the age of the universe and the circumstances under which it came into existence. A good example is the "center of the universe." This area is blanketed in radiation and leftover energy from the Big Bang. Since it is so far away from us, we can actually see what the universe looked like right after it was created. Because this vast field of energy exists, it serves as evidence that there was a singular event which began the creation of the entire universe.Proof of evolution can be seen on the planet Mars. There are bacteria on the planet which resemble Archaebacteria here on Earth. They must have gotten there somehow, obviously. Evolutionary scientists theorize that an event similar to what happened after Earth was created must have taken place on Mars. In other words, the atmosphere of Mars used to be so different that storms raged constantly. As with Earth, a bolt of lightning hit a group of proteins on the face of Mars and the result was primitive life. We have created proteins in labs here on Earth under similar circumstances to what the atmosphere would have been like at the beginning of the planet's existence. When electricity is passed through these proteins, it yields a very basic form of life: amino acids. These acids combine in unique ways to create DNA and other building blocks of living creatures. In the end, the presence of bacteria on Mars is further proof of the theory of evolution.Unfortunately, this debate is only 3 rounds long. So I urge the voters to vote for CON. Thank you, PRO, for creating this debate and giving the public a chance to see the differences between Creationism and science. Lastly, I apologize for my sparse use of sources but they truly weren't needed as all of my assertions were common scientific knowledge.
Evolution vs creation

ill be holding the view of Creationism or fundamentalist now let us begin as Christianity,Jewish believe in the 7 day Record of creation where God created the Heaven and the earth,stars galaxies ,water est est.. i will hold to the Genesis theory and explain with detail why the big bang theory and man existence as well humanity is truth and how Evolution is error. so as we venture through this subject ill start with the literal 7 day period now the bible states a God creating humanity and the earth sky and day and night est est total of seven days. now many will hold to as literal or some hold to as thousands years for such state to exist. now as the bible should be taken as literal i will presume this theory now God created the universe in which God spoke it into existence im not referring to just "big bang " theory as some find but i am saying that all existence everything God created night/ day so on so forth all they way down the list in studying this theory thermodynamic is involved revealing evidence to the expansion as well the evidence to the universe as well the cosmological theory which states that their needs to be an uncaused cause for the existence of everything. stating in the theory of cosmological "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" meaning the universe began to exist therefore,the universe has a cause
Evolution vs creation

You actually seem to be arguing against the Big Bang Theory and not evolution, so I shall defend the BBT first.Scientists speculate that in the beginning, there was an infinitely dense point that was called a "singularity." This point was of an indefinite volume and mass. It alone had always existed. Now, if we incorporate string theory into this, the idea becomes a space-filling object called a "brane." This brane contained an immense amount of potential energy and density. At some point, the brane began to decay and formed an ever-expanding number of minute strings. These strings form the very basic part of matter which we know of, quarks (Bare with me, as I'm not a physicist and am only in high school). Those quarks eventually came together in a complicated process in order to form atoms themselves. From that point, the atoms quickly expanded from the area which they once occupied. This theory explains why the universe is expanding. [This information can be gathered from any physicists' work.]The idea of Creationism does not adequately explain why nor how the universe is in a continuous state of expansion. It also does not explain why we see new stars. Science, however, offers an explanation: the speed of light. If there was a star that was 10 billion light-years away, it would take 10 billion years before we could see the light from it. If Creationism was true, then either the universe really is billions of years old (or at least older than the common Creationist claim), or all of the stars would have to be created at the same time. But if they were created at the same time, we would be able to see them all, and therefore we would not observe new-found stars. [Also basic physics.]Also, for evolution, a strong point which cannot be stressed enough is the existence of vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is any organ or body structure which can be found in multiple species, but serves little or no purpose in a particular species. For example, in humans, the appendix has little apparent function. However, the analogous organ in many other species does have obvious function. This means that the organ is being "phased out" by the evolutionary process as it is deemed unnecessary. So, the question becomes, why do humans have an appendix? If Creationism was true, then all organs would have a purpose, including the appendix. While Creationism does not offer any explanation for this phenomenon, evolution does.
Evolution vs creation

okay sorry for the delay internet is slow but i like to say thank you ... now lets start with The existence of universe in view of a creator . as that is taught in the bible i will be using the Nasb while i dont know what youll be using but anyways now it says in Genesis 1:1 , That God created the Heavens(universe) and the earth . now lets begin with the ex nihilo the breathing out of . God created the world with out any pre-existent material. Meaning that in the beginning it was God alone, that the world would have been made out of nothing, because it had to have a beginning unlike God who always existed. The universe and the world within it is known as finite meaning temporal and always changing while God can not be none of these because then contradict his eternality. The only difference is this in the beginning of Genesis one the author never assumes any mystical battle of gods but only specifies a God as its creator. I In verse 1 we see in the beginning God was what? Alone, this does not say God was with the heavenly host and they created. But He alone created. While seeing the" beginning" of creation in Genesis 1:1. R .K. Harrison says "it should be translated by way of beginning" That it is the beginning of what? –Time! As John H. Walton said "it introduces a period of time" What is this "Period of time" mean? Is then answered, by Utley saying; "This is the beginning of history but not of God's activity." (John17:5; Ephesians 1:4; Titus 1:9) To conclude to what the authors have said, it is the beginning of the way in which the creating of "time and history" Is placed. "As God willed into being everything but himself." (Psalms 33:6, 9) presenting his involvement with creation
UFOs Exist

Of course I don't expect you to believe me and they didn't talk to me like in words it was more like information they imbedded information in me that i needed to later decode which came as a realisation that everything is one and we are all one consciousness. I dont expect you will believe me obviously lol neither would I . People claim and claim UFO's exist as there are many people that see UFO's , you have more chance of seeing a UFO than dying in a car crash so its not so uncommon and no matter what skeptics say and how they 'disprove' crop circles or whatever people continue to see and experience UFOs , they won't go away no matter how fervently you don't believe in them. What cannot be proved is that they are controlled by extraterrestrial beings as our current understanding of the universe is lacking.They could be inter dimensional for example or time travellers.
UFOs Exist

like I said the information wasn't placed into my normal consciousness but rather my subconscious mind , I remember a great feeling of peace and of love. I personally believe what sounds right or resonates with me experience is that these beings are spiritual and good not at all what you see on TV. I believe the paranoid fantasy humans have created about aliens is a reflection of humans own fears and uncertainty. We live in a scary world and we are naturally afraid of anything that we don't understand or could be 'superior' to us. I believe that their culture is concerned with spiritual growth and not the material world .
Communism works if applied correctly

'I never assumed human nature was static. Obviously human nature shifts here and there. We do adapt to our situations. However, human nature has constraints. There's a limit to how much nature will bend. (That's the definition of 'constraint)'Yet, you have failed to show what exactly this 'restraint' is. If we can go from being anarchistic, to tribes, to empires, to feudal lordship, to republicanism, to representative democracy, all in the course of only 7000-10000 years, when we have been alive for hundreds of thousands of years. Then I really don't see how we are restrained, the only possible restraints are time and ignorance, both of which can be overcome with patience and logic.'What you fail to realize is that your so called "communist society" has already been tried and tested. Hunter and gatherer societies, as I am sure you are familiar with, was prevalent from the beginnings of human history. People communally shared resources. People collectively reaped from the earth. Yet the individual and the collective never saw eye to eye. Humans have their own goals, their own incentives. It makes us unique. We inherently value the freedom to pursue our own dreams.'Here, you are assuming that I want a paleolithic system of socio-economics, when I have yet to state my advocation for one. Hunter-gatherer societies are far different from what I advocate for, which is itself industrial and not primitive and violent, and where abundance does not exist.Also, what you fail to realize is that you believe that communism would be forced upon people, and that they would be forced to contribute to the collective. There are three things you fail to realize that show your argument to be false.1. If an individual wishes to not be part of a collective, or an organization, they do not need to be part of it. This is system is completely voluntary, you will not be forced to work for the collective, since you are not exactly needed, there is a reserve army of labor that can take your place.2. If an individual contributes towards the betterment of the collective, they are not only proving their morality and credibility as a human being, but they are benefiting themselves, their friends, their children, and their children's children. It would be illogical not to contribute to society in a communist society.3. You assume that people would not be able to follow their dreams in a communist society. You cannot use hunter-gatherers to attempt to justify this assumption because back in those times, we didn't have factories that produced the means of our survival, we had to kill, rape, and pillage to get our necessities. However, I digress. If anything people would be able to follow their dreams more than they are able to than in todays society, since money, class, and the state won't obstruct their pathway to ambition, due to their abolition.'With so many personal incentives, it's d*mn impossible for a "true communistic society" to ever occur.'The feudalists said that democracy and republicanism were impossible.They are rolling in their graves right now.