BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is homeschooling better than schooling

Homeschooling ought to be valued over public schooling for a multitude of reasons but for this argument I will be touching on only three. 1: Parents understand the downfalls of their student. Parents are able to understand, adapt and comply to their child's needs and downfalls. If there is a student who is absolutely horrific with social sciences and a whiz in english. The parent is able to utilize this in order to make the learning environment better for the student as well as be able to connect those. In the instance of this specific student a parent may be able to apply the childs knowledge in english by having them read books, but also apply that same knowledge to english by having those books pertain to that specific time period. 2: Children are able to obtain more one on one time with teachers If a child is having a hard time in school. They may consult the teacher in and outside of the classroom. It is a privilege to be able to consult your teacher at all times of the day on any types of school related questions. It allows for a more comfortable learning environment and provides for an area where education is consistently at the forefront of the teacher and students minds. 3: Studies show that personal relationships fuel education Studies often have proven that being able to connect on a personal level with a teacher or professor is beneficial in a students life. This is why on average smaller schools with lower student faculty ratios do better and have better outcomes than larger. If this is true which has been proven, the deeper the connection the better the education. Now with this being said, a parent son/daughter relationship is the absolute closest that an educator is able to get with a student. with this being said I rest my affirmative argument that homeschooling is better than public schooling. Vote aff
Is homeschooling better than schooling

by texting "I accept the challenge" you agree to finish this debate without forfeiting and will not say any swear words. So I am for the con side. I will convince you homeschooling is not better than schooling. at home, children will lack off and not do anything. also, schooling will have a BUNCH of professional teachers, at home, the "teachers" can't give them homework, because they are already at home. Children can't have a good concentration. so I am highly positive that schooling is better than homeschooling, affirmative please.
Is homeschooling better than schooling

First thing first, Ashoup, I HAD ENOUGH. I was trying to play nice with you, I was trying to ignore your mean things. YOU are DON'T HAVE THE POWER to say if it is a ridiculous comment or not, the voters are!!!! Secondly, I called YOU out because I was TRYING to TELL YOU IT IS YOUR TURN!!! THAT IS WHAT THE JUDGE DOES IN A FORMAL DEBATE!!!!!!!!! Isn't it just the same as a teacher calling you out to present essay? Thirdly, Mind your spelling. Finally, this is the end of the debate. I AM NOT ARGUING WITH YOU! voters don't need to vote, you don't need to reply anything, because I AM TOTALLY OUT OF BEING YOUR COMPETITOR
Is homeschooling better than schooling

The point is to convicnce judges who to vote for. That was a completely rediculous comment. At the end you stated "affirmative please." Obviously a vote call. Don"t call me out on that again. 1: books You did not refute the basis of my original argument. I talked about being able to cross barriers when a student is not understanding a certain subject. You just said they can read books at school too? First of all they actually can"t because class time is spent conveying information, and second they wouldn"t implement my line of thinking because the teachers don"t know the students well. This argument denied my original line of thinking creating an irrelevant point, that point being one in which is actually false in itself. 2: teacher notification This doesn"t refute the point that direct notification is not as good as seeing the issues yourself. Once again you don"t refute my actual point. 3: emotional relationship A student will have these emotional issues in and outside of the classroom for public and homeschools. The students will have the same reaction. Completely reduculous assumption. Your points 1: Socialize There are programs set up to help homeschooled kids interact with others. This argument is not based in reality so it should be disregarded. 2: outdoors Once again you didn"t do ANY research. There are programs to make sure that homeschooled kids entertain a PE carriculum. 3: responsibility The monitors and teachers ARE the parents and can influence responsibility far more than actually monitors and teachers because they can pick punishments suitable for their student. Vote Neg as my opponent directly left the main school of though behind my argument alone and I validly not only proved how his arguments were not true but why they would be better in a home school environment.
American Sniper was not meant to instigate a pro-war agenda.

Why I think American Sniper was not meant for pro war propagandaIt simply is a movieAlot of people think that many of the acts depicted in the movie are made up, and it was only done to spread hate over Arabs. However, many people are forgetting many of those things happened in the war. There have been female suicide bombers who use their children has live bombs, and it has claimed lives. . http://www.academia.edu...
American Sniper was not meant to instigate a pro-war agenda.

yeah, I bang in the east and the west I put your American sniper down to your chest This what civil war means to me like you hate your life If you like be in a war zone, that means you can suck your knife Thomas Jefferson is a p***y, he can instigate that he purpose to that means you don't make big sentences what that means to you I wish my dad didn't walk out of me if it's between you and the beast I can eat you like beef what agenda uses a bullet to have a meat you think you can be better off alone with you and the debate some dudes think your loco because you have a gay soul mate Watch and close before you post the sentences on the dictionary Look up what you mean back in the 1880s before the devils angry
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

"To say that the society wouldn't work because it has not been tested is ignorant. No society has yet attempted the brainwashing I have suggested, "I never said no society has ever tested brainwashing. I had stated that brainwashing has never been tested successfully. Like North Korea. They are conditioning right from birth. This has been proven to be successful by the thousands of people that try and rebel a year. People are now refraining from rebellion out of pure fear, not brainwashing. You indicate that humans in general are stupid when they're not. You can only brainwash someone to a certain extent. . http://www.mirror.co.uk... . http://www.theguardian.com... . http://www.vice.com... “If tested it would be a success most likely. ” Your statements are making it easier for me to win. You base your arguments on personal belief with no facts or statistics. This is debate on whether or not it will be a good basis for society. We already see brainwashing in North Korea and it results in total unstability. Most North Koreans don’t want to live their. They realize thousands of people die of just starvation a year and if they say something wrong then they are sent to a prison camp. Conclusion Stalinism Is not a good basis for society. He has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people with complete disregard for his own life. We see some of the most brutal forms of dictatorship today in North Korea. My opponent had regarded brainwashing as a successful technique in creating a stable and happy society. This has never been successfully practiced. In fact, the brainwashing is starting to deteriorate in North Korea. Thousands of people a year try to rebel or leave the country. This is just simply not a good basis for society. Not only has my opponent failed to give any sources for this debate, he based his arguments off of personal opinion.
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

Your arguing that brainwashing is feasible in producing a stable and happy society. This has never been practiced successfuly. Ive never seen "the brave new world" so please stop using that as your source. North kroea is as close of an example of why brainwashing doesn't work. Not only is the society unstable but thousands of people have already tried to rebel against their government. This resulted them being locked in a death camp for the rest of their lives and their entire familys. North Korean people are not dumb, im almost positive that they have oppresive thoughts about their government but the north korean regime keeps fear in the peoples eyes, causing people to refrain from rebelling. Your basing you argument off of personal opinion without any facts or statistics. Your only source is the"brave new world" which i have never seen.
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

"Your only solution for a basis of a good society is through child conditioning? You can’t condition a child to be happy for the rest of their lives. Happiness is different for many people. To neurologists, happiness is the experience of a flood of hormones released in the brain as a reward for behavior that prolongs survival. You can’t teach happiness to any individual. Brainwashing can only be achieved by making a young child believe a certain way. Of course, you can’t “believe” in happiness. Brainwashing doesn’t work as well as you think. Your way of brainwashing a child to become loyal can possibly be successful but not 100% successful. You can see this in the North Korean regime today."Happiness cannot be taught but people can be taught what causes happiness. This is very much seen in the book Brave New World, where the individuals are put in a stable condition in which what they were taught to be happy with is consistently reinforced. Whenever they cannot be happy they intake drugs to maintain that happiness. This produces a completely happy world, even though individuals may not be taught to be happy under all situations are allowed to be happy even when they don't meet the conditions."North Korea has isolated their people to a point where it’s hard to tell what goes on in this country. But we have enough to have an idea of what regime is being put forth by their leadership. North Koreans operate under a command economy with no individual freedom or liberty. They are brainwashed at birth to believe Kim Jung Un is a God. His face is plastered everywhere, books, all TV channels, every household must have a picture of him hanging up or they will receive jail time. Now we do know for a fact that there have been hundreds of thousands of people who have oppressed that government, even with the child conditioning tactics. Of course, these people are sent to death camps where they will be tortured then soon killed. This is not a stable and happy society." It is not currently a stable and happy society, but given time natural selection will take place and those that are left alive will be the submissive and happy individuals, because happiness goes with submission. "Your version of child conditioning is to eradicate them through pain? “Individuals would shock babies with painful electric shocks when they are around flowers, so they will hate nature. “ I’m sorry but this is just sick. This can’t be a good/health society when you are physically torturing babies to adapt to the vision of a dictator. Studies have shown that physically abusing a child will result to an unstable mentality later in that person’s life. These are the people who conduct these mass shootings/killings etc, because of the built up anger and emotions they have inside of them." The conditioning isn't that entitely simple. It is more complicated than that, but that is a simple example of a method used in the brainwashing process.
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

My argument consists of happiness and how it is the only factor to a good society, as I have already stated. “The individual based his arguments far from the society I described.” Your only solution for a basis of a good society is through child conditioning? You can’t condition a child to be happy for the rest of their lives. Happiness is different for many people. To neurologists, happiness is the experience of a flood of hormones released in the brain as a reward for behavior that prolongs survival. You can’t teach happiness to any individual. Brainwashing can only be achieved by making a young child believe a certain way. Of course, you can’t “believe” in happiness. Brainwashing doesn’t work as well as you think. Your way of brainwashing a child to become loyal can possibly be successful but not 100% successful. You can see this in the North Korean regime today. North Korea has isolated their people to a point where it’s hard to tell what goes on in this country. But we have enough to have an idea of what regime is being put forth by their leadership. North Koreans operate under a command economy with no individual freedom or liberty. They are brainwashed at birth to believe Kim Jung Un is a God. His face is plastered everywhere, books, all TV channels, every household must have a picture of him hanging up or they will receive jail time. Now we do know for a fact that there have been hundreds of thousands of people who have oppressed that government, even with the child conditioning tactics. Of course, these people are sent to death camps where they will be tortured then soon killed. This is not a stable and happy society. Your version of child conditioning is to eradicate them through pain? “Individuals would shock babies with painful electric shocks when they are around flowers, so they will hate nature. “ I’m sorry but this is just sick. This can’t be a good/health society when you are physically torturing babies to adapt to the vision of a dictator. Studies have shown that physically abusing a child will result to an unstable mentality later in that person’s life. These are the people who conduct these mass shootings/killings etc, because of the built up anger and emotions they have inside of them. “I do not represent a communist ideal, which you seem to represent, but a much more properly called totalitarian socialism” Well communism and socialism is the same thing in terms of economic policies. A totalitarian socialism is the worst form of government control of its people. My opponent has configured a society that has never been practiced before. There is probably a reason why. Child conditioning to form a society to a certain rule has only been a theory. Never before has it been done successfully to where the government and the society is stable. My argument is that practicing this technique will result to a wide form of rebellion. My opponent believes that child conditioning will make the persona ignorant when my position states clearly that people are smart and not dumb, as we see in North Korea today. Brainwashing doesn’t work for the vast majority of people.
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

Rebuttal The individual based his arguments far from the society I described. The societies he describes lack the massive amount of so called "brain-washing" at birth required to make them loyal enough and willing enough to accept the position of totalitarian socialism in their life. I do not represent a communist ideal, which you seem to represent, but a much more properly called totalitarian socialism, as it does not in fact promote happiness, and as we can easily see by the definition of communism "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.,"[1] Stalin in fact did not practice it nor did he get involved in " ...the pursuit of communism." He only used communism as a word to attract the peasants so he could rule over them. Conditioning When the babies are born and growing up, conditioning is applied. They are conditioned to like or dislikes things through pain, an example of such is that, the individuals would shock babies with painful electric shocks when they are around flowers, so they will hate nature. This has to be applied more times than once before the babies will truly hate nature. Children would be then subjected to sleep-learning . Such things would then be said during their sleep as, "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse"" Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too-all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides-made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are the governments suggestions This in fact, despite what you think, would make a very happy individual later in life, even though he may be ignorant.. His morals may not be the same as our own and this society may seem to you immoral, but this matters not. The society would be stable and happy, and much more so than any democratic or communistic government (if their has ever truly been one) could ever hope to be. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

I state the the improved form of stalinism would be one in which in fact productivity and happiness would thrive. This would be due to childhood conditioning, much like that seen in the novel Brave New World. This would eradicate the human problem found in previous socialistic countries, and that si the ability of the individual to want to advance in his/her society. The eradication of this would provide all in their positions with contentment and happiness and allow a fully socialistic country to function. The crushing of the idea of rebellion in the individual would in fact prevent him from rebelling and prevent him from feeling the need to rebel as a person.
The idea of stalinism is the basis of a good society.

I accept. Stalinism is the development of socialism while in turn, creating a communist society. Stalin associated himself as a totalitarian dictator and of whom established a party that was dominated by intellectuals and rhetoricians. My argument will consists of debunking Stalinism and the socialistic theory, portraying failed socialist societies. My opponent will need to clarify what it means exactly to have a "changed version" of Stalinism. http://www.britannica.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Walmart would love to medicate me, with .gov's blessing.

You have kind of annoyed me with your assumption that I have no earnings, or are ashamed of the earnings I have. I have earned far more for others, of questionable ilk, then I ever hope to for myself. Obviously, if I had taken the option of 1 billion dollars per year as the description of my worth you would respect me more, greedy King. Right? My net worth is in the 100k to 200k range, after 41 years of blood and sweat on this planet, plenty of both. I get no scholarships, grants, or complimentary vacations. Please disclose all of yours honestly. Like that will ever happen.
Walmart would love to medicate me, with .gov's blessing.

What they want is my income, or to convince someone from .gov to subsidize my pills at the taxpayers expense for their own profit. Now the BOP is on you to prove me as a liar. You accepted the BOP is yours. Why do you play the game every time by pointing the BOP at the stater of the argument, while supplying none of your own as the disagreer. America live under the premise "innocent until proven guilty". Not from here are you?
Unperceived Existence Is Not Possible

Honestly, Pro does a far better job of articulating my case than I ever could. An object which "doesn`t exist" whenever I look away but is always there when I look back has the exact properties of an object that does exist when I am not looking.An alternative example to close. I and Pro are on opposites sides of a window which permits us to see only one another`s faces. I tell Pro "Hey, Pro, I`ve got a playing card in my bag". Pro, of course, not seeing the playing card, asserts that "unperceived existence is impossible", meaning that my playing card of course, as he does not perceive it, does not exist. Of course, I can`t dispute that, because I`m not seeing the playing card even though I put it in there this morning, so I go ahead and open the bag and show Pro the playing card. Now it exists. I put it back in the bag and say "Hey, Pro, I`ve got a playing card in my bag." Pro again asserts that this is impossible, so I once again produce the card. Neither of us is perceiving the card (its weight is insignificant and indetectable compared to the bag), yet out of 100 times we do this exercise, 100 times I will be right, and 100 times Pro will be wrong.
Unperceived Existence Is Not Possible

Cars possibly coming into existence while I try to cross the street is where the evidence leads me. I do not have sufficient evidence to believe that if a car comes into my view while I try to cross the street, then it existed before it came into my view. The idea of cars possibly coming into existence while I try to cross the street may seem "bizarre, unnatural, and anything [but] 'reasonable and practical,'" but just because an idea is "bizarre, unnatural, and anything [but] 'reasonable and practical,'" doesn't mean it's false.Object permanence is a flawed understanding. There is not enough evidence that objects exist in my perspective when I do not observe them. Object permanence seems to be based off of approximate yet inexact evidence. It seems that as a result, object permanence is itself an approximate yet inexact truth.As to your thought experiment, the money that was shut behind a door does not exist in my perspective so long as I do not perceive it. But just because the money doesn't exist immediately after the door is shut, doesn't mean the money will never exist again. I would have faith, supposing the game show was trustworthy enough in my perspective, that if I choose the first door, I would win the money and the money would again exist at some time in the future. This is similar to the faith and trust we put into financial institutions with our money. When we put money into financial institutions, we don't always perceive our funds and so they don't always exist, but we nevertheless have faith that they will exist for our use in the future.As to your claim that if unperceived existence is not possible, then it is impossible that the money in the thought experiment is there when the first door is closed, I agree. Your claim may seem surprising, but it makes sense considering that there are multiple senses of possibility.Unperceived things are necessarily incredible and thus are necessarily unreliable. They necessarily have the ability to mislead and hurt us. For that reason, the possibility of unperceived existence is too bad to be true, and is therefore false.Because of the general, principled lack of fully convincing evidence, the proposition "Unperceived existence is possible" can't be proved. In other words, the proposition is unprovable. Like I mentioned earlier in the debate, it seems to be a basic, straightforward truth that: a proposition is provable if and only if it is true. So, the proposition "Unperceived existence is possible" seems false. Therefore, it seems that unperceived existence is not possible.