BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The UK should keep Grammar schools

I understand that the grammar school entrance system may be seen as unfair in which many working class families cannot afford 11+ tuition for their child/children. So because of this, only those of the middle and upper classes will afford tuition for this. I understand that there are many people who are grammar school teachers who have offered their time and knowledge to help 11-12 year old with their 11+ exam studies. This has recently occurred over a range of areas in England and Scotland despite many these tuition groups not being funded by the government. I have noticed that it is not just teachers, who are offering this 'help', it is many different members of many different communities. I and my family were fortunate to receive minimum fee 11+ tuition yet this tuition being of reasonable quality. The people running this were two women of the local Muslim community. Yet despite this, they would accept any child of any culture or religion for free. I wish that more people could have these wonderful qualities. In retrospect of this, I would like to say that is possible for underprivileged children to be able to take the 11+ exam and pass with the help of these tuition groups. Now because of this, I would strongly believe that the grammar school system can give the lower and the middle classes as well as the upper classes a chance to higher education and then more financially stable jobs and futures. Please note that naturally, not every child would pass the exam, which is the purpose of the 11+. To help justify my point that the Grammar School entrance system is becoming fairer. I shall use the point that many grammar schools are creating programs services which are aimed at challenging the ‘unfairness of the grammar school selection system’ by helping to encourage, motivate and inspire children who have overlooked Grammar School education to understand the benefits of grammar school education and how Grammar School education works. An example of this is the Westcliff High School for boy’s WESTCLIFF CENTRE FOR GIFTED CHILDREN. Please note that I am not entirely comfortable with providing such names, but who cares? The purpose of education is about the individual needs of the children. Education is about identifying and cultivating individual talent. If a school levels down on this and helps all the students on the same basis and needs, the majority of the students would most likely under perform and would not reach their academic potential. Now we can see, how it would be good to have both Comprehensive and Grammar schools alike, because the comprehensive could use their resources to tailor to the needs of the perhaps less gifted children and the grammar school could conserve what would have gone to that if that school had a wider mixed ability range. We can see from this that everyone would benefit.
The UK should keep Grammar schools

Despite this, I shall carry on presenting my argument. I have been doing recent research on many comprehensive and I have found that these comprehensive schools have included many other less academically important subjects in the Gsce syllabus such as child development (Home economics), Film Studies ( absolutely irrelevant to someone's learning, unless aspiring to be a film critic etc), catering, dance and drama. I feel that because of these schools are exerting their energy into these subjects instead of using that possible money and resources to focus on the more important subjects. As a result of this, the average grade for one of these subjects is a 'glorious' C grade. To prove my point that having subjects like this is affecting the educational quality of the more important subjects, the GSCE grade results show that 1-2 % of core subject candidates achieved an a-a* grade. Also, it says that the grade majority is a C grade for the core subjects. This is why I find Grammar schools to be important. Seldom, these schools have these Gsce options, and in result of this, they can use more of their resources and money to focus on the core education. This has proved to be effective in which more than 50% of all core gcse candidates achieved an a-a* grade. I also think grammar schools are worth keeping, due to the fact that, the majority of times, grammar schools (often non-paying schools) can provide better education than the majority of private (paying) or state comprehensive schools.
The UK should keep Grammar schools

I am for this argument. I myself, am a grammar school student in the UK. Recently, the government has been debating on whether to keep Grammar schools. So I would to have my own debate on this. Grammar schools are basically what divides 25% most intelligent students from the rest of the students in the UK (educationally speaking). The pathway to the entrance of a grammar school is most often the Eleven Plus exam taken by 11-12 year olds. Recent statistics say that more than 50% of all A-A* grades in the UK were achieved by students from Grammar schools. Please note that there are currently only 164 or so grammar schools in the UK. Oddly enough, it has recently been said that apparently, just being a grammar school student and because of the "grammar" part, has acted as an incentive for the improvement on Academic grades.Personally, I find that the environment of a Grammar school is much different to that of a comprehensive school in which there greater relationships between students and teachers etc. Often on of the main goals of a grammar school student is to respect others and to create relationships with other. This is set upon students because it is believed that this will create a better work environment to help cultivate and nurture academic skills. Please also note that I find nothing wrong with Comprehensive Schools, which I know maintain somewhat the same standards as a Grammar school.
no be dumshit I make God real for you I help

man say years of billions.I make floor clean for man who put money for me.TV on and things heard. I see man say Jill Stein want more money than many for her, big money for always. I say to man why he say this thing. He say it take world years of billions to see dumshit woman as her. I no like woman who take and no give and put sad for many. You put question to me I help for you always I help.
no be dumshit I make God real for you I help

You no like god I help. You say no god I help for you.Put question for me I take and make you know it.God make world in many things and god is put them to do for him. God boss for them. God say no do this. No do it.God say do this for always you do it.Sky is put for bird and bird know this.You say no God is for world I say you dumshit.No be the dumshit no more. I help for you.
A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson Missouri

A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson because there were riots which endanger citizens. It is justifiable due to the widespread rioting, looting, and destruction of property that occurred over the multiple day period. These things endanger the life of innocent citizens and the police force by itself cannot handle this type of situation. It was in their best interest to call in the bigger troops for this type of thing. With the rioters in this town already not feeling a strong presence of police, they needed more help. With all this being said, right now Michael's stepfather may be charged for inciting a riot. As soon as he left the courthouse he was seen and caught on camera yelling threats to burn down the town. That night, the town went crazy and riots started. It is still being determined if he will be charged or not, but it is pretty clear that these people do not want peace. With this being said, the police and national guard needed to do what they needed to in order to protect those that actually wanted peace. Officer Wilson has done the best thing in his interest to protect himself and his family. At the end of the day, each officer's goal is to make it home at night. One man has already been arrested for threatening to kill the officer. Jaleel Jabbaar posted threats to him and his family via Facebook. Threats have been made directly to the officer and to his family, and his most important goal is to keep his family safe, not his job. If he continued in his career and did not resign, every time he wanted to make even a simple traffic stop, people would know who he is and some people would not be very respectful of his position if you might say. Police are here to serve and protect, and it would be very difficult for him to do that with the way some citizens would treat him as an officer. http://www.nbcnews.com... http://fox2now.com...
A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson Missouri

Last Summer in Ferguson, Missouri a white policeman Darren Wilson shot an unarmed black teenager Micheal Brown to death. The results are chaos all over the country with protests running from city to city, state to state. The politicians and civil leaders have made it into a big deal of discrimination with racial undertones waiting to explode. The policeman has resigned fearing for his safety [he has been on administrative leave] and for others that worked with him stating his conscience is clear and neither did the grand jury indict Wilson for the death of the teenager. Why should he resign if he did not do any wrong? The police are the law keepers, so why are they fearing for their lives now? A state of Emergency was declared a day before the grand jury's decision and the National Guards were deployed to keep the protesters at bay, so why should the threats against him or others bother them? Here is a summary of the timeline to this incident as reported by CBS news http://www.cbsnews.com...... http://www.reuters.com...... http://www.npr.org......
A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson Missouri

The media never tells the whole truth, but the National Guard were probably there for a good reason, which is to keep the citizens of that city, in this case St. Louis, safe. In Ferguson, they did not really have to do anything like attacking, all they need to do is actually be there and show the power they have. Residents in St. Louis are having a hard time pen-pointing the looters just like the residents of Savannah are having a hard time pen-pointing shooters. In a little over the past week there has been 11 seperate shootings in Savannah. A state of emergency is required in Ferguson and St. Louis because they are protecting the residents of the city, but at this point they are protecting the city from the residents. It's better to be safe than sorry in these types of situations, it was better to have the National Guard there and not need them rather than to need them and not have them, even though in Ferguson they were needed. http://www.wtoc.com...
A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson Missouri

Never ever rely on what you see in the media. It is all hype that is meant to increase the viewing ratios and advertisers advantage. Another young man who worked at a Walmart was shot then burned in his car. No one saw who did it and why they did it, yet the National guard were in place at St. Louis. http://www.nytimes.com... Like in the past, they arrive stop nothing, see nothing and we have same difference. All the residents of St. Louis cannot pin point the looters yet its a close community. In fact what most media house don't show is how the residents were stopping the looting of their local stores from people. http://fellowshipoftheminds.com... A State of Emergency is not justified in St. Louis if the allotted administration does not live up to their standards to wane the atrocities and protect the residents to help and return the city to its full glory.
A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson Missouri

Yes history definitely repeats itself. But there are some differences, the way blacks and whites interacted in 1917 was a completely different world from how they interact today. They are equal now. Also, police do know exactly who issued the multiple death threats to Officer Wilson. So in order for him to be a good husband and father, it was best for him to resign. The National Guard needed to step in regardless. People's lives were in danger. Without them stepping in those people never would have stopped. There would have been nothing to stop them. They weren't looking for peace. They were not fixing any problems. They were not getting anyone to listen and consider their opinions. They were destroying a town in memory of someone who passed away. Everyone has their way of coping but the ones that coped in a peaceful way did not deserve to go to sleep hoping their house or business store did not get burned down by random looters protesting and rioting. The innocent citizens of Ferguson deserve to go to bed at night with peace, they did not ask to coincidentally be living in the same town that Brown was killed. People are getting their businesses destroyed, cars destroyed, houses destroyed, when most of them did not even know Brown and are just random people trying to go about their day. There are people who are now in debt because of this all happening (businesses and homes being destroyed). So in order to protect the humans of Ferguson, National Guard needed to help. There is no reason that officials should stand by and watch a town be destroyed and multiple lives be put in danger and do nothing about it. This type of situation is exactly what the National Guard is here for and trained for.
A state of emergency is justified in Ferguson Missouri

I see a repeat of the riots and protests that happened in May of 1917 where White people lynched and killed African Americans for migrating to East Louis, getting hired by The Aluminum Ore Company and replacing them by taking their jobs and positions . Lets look at some similarities of then and now:- A rumor is started that a white man has been robbed by an African American in 1917 and no-one has ever found out which White man was robbed and by who. A death threat has 'supposedly' been given to all policemen and their families no-one knows who issued the threat and which particular policemen. The National Guards came in to St.Louis in 1917, to quell the unrest just like they do in 2014. The Blacks still go on the rampage and protest in other cities in 1917 just like they do in 2014 We don't want what transpired after in 1917 to happen now in 2014. I say we don't need a state of emergency in Missouri. If History repeats itself, then we should brace ourselves for the next massacre of Colored people while the police and the and the National Guard look on without doing anything protective to these citizens. http://teachinghistory.org... http://www.blackpast.org...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Happy to think with you today. With such a character limited debate (3k) I'm going to have to be brief on each of these complex points. If it feels I'm being terse, Please understand that is why. The debate over climate change does not exist. It is changing. The debate is on how much of an effect humans have on it. 98% of climate scientists say we have an effect. The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. Some catastrophes are worse than others. If we can diminish a $4T catastrophe to a $2T catastrophe by spending $1T this is worth it. And that is only if you're prioritizing MONEY not MORALS. The more we spend now to diminish the catastrophe the more we save in the long term when the catastrophe peaks. And again, As a species, Much less a country, Preserving our environment ought to be a priority. It is not about money itself. So, Saying 'delayed' is wrong. It is about the magnitude. A 1. 5C increase in global climate temperatures will be a small catastrophe. A 3C increase is massive. A 4C increase would see much of our current pleasures destroyed. Here's a bit of a list of consequences. Feel free to select several to expand on. 1. Sea levels rise. This reduces available land. It puts many coastal cities underwater, Causing many people to be forced to move and many billions in damage over the course of the next 100 years. 2. Saltwater increases globally due to the melted ice. Freshwater may become tainted. Results in less drinking water. 3. The reduction in land will swallow up many islands, Forcing entire countries to become refugees. If you think we have an immigration problem now, Wait until the crisis occurs. 4. Animals go extinct or have habitats reduced drastically. Breaking the food chain can have consequences all the way up that chain, Including us. 5. The reduction in land decreases available farmland. The increase in climate temperature changes the locations of optimal growing areas for crops. Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even optimal farmland available. This results in lower food production which results in famine and malnutrition. 6. The increased distance of sea before hurricanes hit land would empower hurricanes as well has have them hit locations that are not used to hurricanes. Associated costs, Again. More powerful hurricanes than we've seen before. 7. Increased temperatures would likely lead to droughts and increases in wildfires. Resulting in less trees to absorb pollutants and give us oxygen, Increasing air pollution. Associated costs can already be felt in California where the air is causing real human problems. These are a small fraction of the problems. All of which can be reduced or empowered based on the decision of the US. To say that terraforming the planet that we live on, That changing the global climate is an issue that should be a LOW priority for the US is absolutely absurd. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

===== Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore, ---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE ---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate ===== End DISCLAIMER ===== 1 ========= My Argument #1 Many people think that the climate choices are: A) fix the climate, Or B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE. In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices: B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? ) If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets. If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let's call these incremental costs "P"). If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let's call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs. Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q. 2 ========= Defining the CATASTROPHE When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. Please be as specific as you can: number of degrees of extra heat, Inches of ocean rise, Number of climate-related deaths, Etc. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate. (1) The link is not working, The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

As a reminder to the judges and my opponent, The debate is on whether or not the US should make the terraforming of our earth a LOW priority or a med-high priority. I'm going to rephrase some of my opponent's arguments to be yes/no questions. See how many you agree with. 1. Scientists are sure there will be a catastrophe, But since they can't us exactly how many trillions of dollars it will cost it should be a low priority. 2. Since I as a non-scientist deem the scientist's proposed solutions unappealing, We should not fund their research fully until they have already developed solutions that appeal to me 100%. 3. If there isn't ONE solution to climate change we should not take the proposed solutions seriously. I don't think 20 different solutions that get us small portions of the way there is a viable way to deal with climate change. IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from solar, Wind, Geothermal, Or nuclear. We can't use all of them. 4. I think when climate research is funded that money disappears off the face of the planet instead of being circulated back through the economy. All $2T of research (if that is true) is completely gone off the face of the Earth. (This is not how economies work) 5. I said funding for climate change should be the equivalent of the space race which was high priority but that doesn't mean I conceded that climate change should be high priority. 6. It shouldn't be governments that have to answer to the people that should deal with the terraforming of our planet, It should be private companies who aren't answerable to the people. 7. Other problems exist. We can't solve those other problems at the same time as we solve climate change, Because the scientists who study those problems definitely stop studying those problems and working on solutions to those problems and focus instead on areas of research outside of their field of study. Definitely. This is the problem with my opponent's line of reasoning. There need not be ONE solution to climate change. If something gets us 5% of the way there, That's great. If research is funded for solutions, We will find better and more practical solutions as well, Which may allow us more control over the climate in case the climate scientists are wrong and the climate starts cooling. Solar power CAN give us more than 100% of current power requirements easily. I'm not sure why he is pretending it cannot. I gave sources for this. The sun is a literal fusion reactor many times the size of our planet. I couldn't even get him to concede this point. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. I can list hundreds of different problems. The sad fact is most of them don't lead to catastrophes. Diseases, Malnutrition, Poverty, And malaria in particular would all be significantly increased with a warmer climate. No economist agrees with tariffs and those can be gone whenever Trump wants. The negative terraforming of our planet is the most serious problem we face today.