BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science is a Threat to Humanity

As he addressed in the original post, I will need to utilize this round as a strictly constructive case. In accordance with this, I will not address any of his arguments. He has attempted to redefine science, which I take umbrage with as this needed to be addressed in the "Layout" section, but his definition is similar enough for me to use it. Contention 1: Science does not reach many people. A recent study displays this quite nicely, in the form of displaying scientific illiteracy. "The survey included more than 2,200 people in the United States and was conducted by the National Science Foundation. Ten questions about physical and biological science were on the quiz, and the average score—6.5 correct—was barely a passing grade. " [1]. This trend exhibits an important point: Even if the study of the natural world could, in and of itself, be shown to be damaging, it still would not reach a large quantity of people. And because the definition for humanity is "all people," the study of science cannot be said to affect humanity based on this piece of information. Contention 2: Science merely displays knowledge for humanity, which is not harmful. Scientific studies have been utilized to great effect over the lifetime of the universe. It has allowed for us to develop heliocentric theory, understand lightning, and grasp other naturally occurring phenomena. These occurrences in no way began to exist simply because we understood them, and as such, our understanding of these occurrences would reap only benefit. Because increasing understanding is the extent that science attempts to reach, no threat can be derived. I would like to thank my opponent once again for instigating this debate. It is extremely thought provoking, and has already led to me attempting to grasp the world in a different way. In accordance with the rules, I have abstained from rebutting his arguments. I would also like to caution my opponent to rebut my points in full. In standard debate format, silence equals consent, and new arguments can not be brought up in the final round. I apologize if this is out of line. [1] - . http://phys.org...
Science is a Threat to Humanity

To start off with, this debate is inarguable. All of the nuclear weapons are both science and a threat to humanity. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... We study many animals and some might try to consume us. Fire can be called, to some extent, science, and it is capable of harming us.
Science is a Threat to Humanity

DefinitionsScience: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. [1]Threat: A person or thing likely to cause damage or danger. [2]Humanity: All people. [3]Is: third person singular present of be. [4]Be: exist [5]Because my opponent did not establish these definitions in his opening statement, I must define these terms to begin this debate. As Pro has stated, we have a shared BoP. This implies that my opponent must show that science is a threat to humanity, and I must show that it is not. To be clear, I do not have to show that science is necessarily positive, merely that it is not a threat. This is because it was not addressed in the first round of my opponent, so the logical conclusion is that I merely need to prove the negation of the resolution. Moreover, my opponent must prove that science, in its current form, has a high likelihood of causing damage or danger. This is due to the definition I provided of is. My opponent's burden is to prove that we can prescribe a high probability of causing damage or danger to humanity as it is now, not that it is probable that this state of affairs could occur, as this would abdicate my opponent of the burden provided by the word "is. " I will now end my opening statements. My opponent may now begin. Sources:[1] - . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] - Google search "threat" definition: 2. [3] - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] - Google search "is". [5] - Google search "be".
Life is Meaningless...

We are raised to pursue our idea of happiness, money. Once we are raised into the 'system' of school, work, and bills we find Love. Love, the only thing we use to divert us from this 'corrupt' goal of attaining money, but instead we live in the moment as humans, when in love. Not caring for anything else but the other person, no worries in the world. that is happiness. Am i wrong? Well if i am not, then therefore if happiness is our goal and being with who you love is happiness, then if yu are always with that person one of you must loose the other in some point of you're lives. Having your Partners life taken from the mortal world has to be the most horrible thing that can happen to a human being. therefore if death is the ending of all things. then that must mean we as humans will be forgotten one day. As all other species we do not know about. -Here is a side note to cover the point of 'Life'. Life is not eternal. there will be an end. The earth one day will be forgotten. We will one day be forgotten, just as your ancestors are. Our Money we earned throughout our lives will one day be spent. Our Blood is the only reminder of ourselves.
modern schools kill creativity

it was nargizgab's burden to give examples of how schools kill creativity. All he states is that our system is monotonous, and throughout the whole debate gives no sources or proper refutations. My opponents tries arguing in round 3 that one system of education isn't enough for millions of diverse students; this, however, is refuted by my independent high school contention. Each student enrolls in the plethora of classes that best suit their own creative needs. My opponent even says "...in showing some new approaches to the problems..." I have done this with independent high schools. These are schools located in high numbers across many countries, and they help creativity grow like it's a plant and they are miracle grow.
modern schools kill creativity

My opponent said "These classes can be taken online as well, giving the student a better atmosphere to learn in, creating more creativity." It is not a matter of place where are you creating, but how well your product is accepted. For example, as it was described in my story, creating something that doesn't exist and isn't approved by society is automatically declined. Why we do not organize schools by the Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence? Do you really think that one system of education is enough for millions of students, which are all different as a persons, to show their full potential? The challenge is discovering how to create environments where creativity is generated with enthusiasm and purpose. Creativity is its own reward. We can not measure it or give marks from 1 to 10 for it. Creativity isn't about upgrading thinks, or in our case knowledge but in showing some new approaches to the problems or new points of view which can help to overwhelm existing issues. Thank you
modern schools kill creativity

My opponent keeps arguing that the system is linear and has no way to create creativity, but these are merely his opinions. He has not shown a poll, source, or otherwise that would support his case, only what he thinks. Keep in mind that it is the burden of nargizgab's to show how schools kill creativity. His only claims are that since they force them to work from a curriculum, that it stifles the creativity. How? Just because someone is in a math class, doesn't mean it can't be creative. It's up to the teacher to implement ways to make it creative. I, and I am sure many of the reader's, have had teachers that make things much more fun to learn about through a much more creative medium; taking walks on a nice day and doing class outside is an example. While my opponent has given nothing to base his opinions off of, I have given a point that schools extend creativity, which wasn't refuted.
modern schools kill creativity

ok, i see your point of view, but. For the start, I would like to tell one story. During the class, while teacher was talking lecture, one girl from the back of the class was drawing. When teacher asked her what she was drawing, she relied "God". Teacher was surprised and said "But nobody knows how God looks like". In some point of view, it is correct as nobody has ever seen him, but for the girls imagination, it was silly, so she replied "Then, they will now find out". What I mean is that, schools are limiting our imagination, and whatever do not fit in the previous shapes, is considered as wrong. There are numerous examples of geniuses like Einstein or even Gitler, who was genius too, being taken as fools just because their opinions were different form standart and people by theirs nature are afraid of unknown. Our system education is linear and focused not on developing variety of opinions but on standardization.
modern schools kill creativity

Independent high schools are offered in a variety of locations, giving students access to an independent learning style. The student is motivated by his or her own interests, not by the assignments of the teacher. This sparks creativity, for they must come up with new ways to challenge themselves. Also, the range of independent study courses is vast; students won't be learning only the subjects the school wants them to, as my opponent states, but a large variety of preferred topics. These classes can be taken online as well, giving the student a better atmosphere to learn in, creating more creativity. "Artists, dancers, athletes, and actors have all benefited from an independent study high school". Not only can you enroll in an independent high school, but you can take independent courses in any high school. Being that this is a school type, and it offers creativity, I successfully negate the resolution.
modern schools kill creativity

The system of education is still operating like in times of USSR, creating new generations of workers without their own point of view or without will to change anything. Schools align subjects by order of importance, not concerning predispositions of students and the result is 5 math or native language classes per week and 1 class of art or music. Over the time, this schedule is pressing individual affinities back, not leaving time to develop any skills which are required for work in system.
Israel is repressing the Palestinians

Much worse things have happened to the original inhabitants of a land than what has happened to the Palestinians. Here are my contentions with that and why. CONTENTION #1: Palestinians actually enjoy much more freedoms than almost everyone else in the Middle East. Free speech is much more prominent in Israel, given that there are some newspapers that are openly sympathetic towards the PLO, and also given that some leaders of other countries in the Middle East practice a huge amount of censorship. In March in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh International Book Fair confiscated 10,000 copies of 420 books, according to this article: http://www.theguardian.com... CONTENTION #2: Palestinians enjoy a better economic situation in Israel than most other Arabs in the Middle-East. Israel has a GDP of over SIX TIMES as much as Iraq's. Most Palestinians have twice as much in their savings than most other Arabs.
Israel is repressing the Palestinians

Well, maybe thats due to the fact that Israel/Palestine used to be governed by muslim and arab governments until the arrival of the British. There are many terrorists and suicide bombers because of the jewish takeover when the British established a Jewish state. Most of the Israeli/Palestinian Demographic history of the area is the majority of the population being arabs/muslims living in Israel/Palestine and governed by arabs/muslims. That is why, people in Palestine think it is not rightful for the Jewish to be the governing state when it has been governed by the muslims for over a thousand years despite the fact of the ancient hebrew inhabitancy in which they abandoned Israel.
Israel is repressing the Palestinians

A big topic in today's news is Israel and its position in Palestine. There is especially an expanding amount of controversy over the fairly recent attack on Gaza. I believe that Israel is perfectly in its right to do this, as it needs to defend itself in any way possible from Islamic terrorism, and letting people fire missiles at them (like Gaza did) does not exactly send the correct message, even if they do not cause a good deal of harm. Israel is in a constant need to defend itself, as shown by the Six-Day War. Israel needs to do things such as the invasion of Gaza and the preliminary strike on Egypt mainly because it understands that if the Jews were to scatter across the world again, it would result in another event similar to the Holocaust and the expulsion of Jews from the Ukraine region in 1905. This is especially emphasized by the attitude the Palestinians take towards Israel, as a poll taken by a Jewish newspaper in 2007 showed that 58% of all Palestinians supported an armed attack against Israel. And another question: Are the Palestinians really repressed?
Homosexual actions are immoral

= = = = = = = Introduction = = = = = = = This debate is on the morality of homosexual acts with more emphasis on sodomy but not excluding other homosexual acts. I will have the burden of proof in this debate and as such, will be arguing for the affirmation of the resolution. Con must only rebut my case. = = = = = = = Debate Guidelines = = = = = = = 1. First Round is for acceptance2. Opening Arguments/Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/Arguments4. Closing statements/RebuttalsNo side can present new arguments in the last round. By accepting, my opponent agrees to abide by all conditions and rules. Only sources may be posted in an external link with no additional commentary. This is a serious debate, no semantics. If you want any clarifications and/or extra terms that need to be defined let me know before accepting.
hulk vs batman

What you said is pretty confusing but I'm pretty sure you're supporting Hulk and shouldn't you be Pro since Hulk comes 1st in the title? Anyways, your argument is that Hulk will beat Batman only because Batman can only fight at night whereas Hulk can beat batman at any time of day. Although Batman does fight at night most of the time, he can fight in the morning and noon too if he chooses too. Batman has fought Superman in the morning and the outcome was in Batman's favor. He also fought Bane in the morning/afternoon as showed in the end of The Dark Night Rises, where again the battle ends up in Batman's favor.
hulk vs batman

I hope my opponent is ok. Since I am bored though, might as well add the arguments I was going to use in the 1st place except shorter this time, since I have no idea what to argue against at this point. Batman was able to beat Superman and most people say Superman could beat the Hulk so with that logic, Batman can beat the Hulk. Also Batman didn't just beat Superman, he also beat the Justice League quite easily really. If Batman can take them down, he can probably handle the Hulk. http://upload.wikimedia.org... Batman usually knows info about every person he faces such as their weaknesses. Spiderman knows how to beat each Avenger when all goes wrong and who's in that team? The Hulk I'm sure Batman would be able to figure out Hulk's weaknesses too. Batman could be able to just calm down the Hulk. With his money,technology, & intelligence, I'm sure he can think of someway to soothe the Hulk down. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kids today care too much about material possession instead of what they have.

Humans, from the beginning of time, have sought wealth and materialistic manifestations of happiness and symbols of wealth and power. When looking back throughout history, many of the greatest empires in the world were built on the infrastructure of vanity and wealth. They tax people at ridiculous rates to gain more wealth for basic services, such as passage through territories they own. I understand that you dislike how society is progressing into a place where children and people in general continuously want more and more. However, people are psychologically inclined to want more, whether it is wealth, power, or knowledge. You may have the opinion that this mentality is wrong and negative, but you cannot impose these ideologies on others. How children act is based solely on how parents teach them, and if their parents continuously feed them more and more, there is not much you can do to stop it. However, I'm a child who lives in the United States currently. I'm trying to convince my parents to get me an iPhone, and I feel like I have legitimate reasoning behind wanting one. It's mobile, it provides information, it has GPS in case I am lost, it's multifunctional, it can take pictures, it has communication tools, and many kids at school use it for things like games and social media. The list goes on. I was trying to point out that at times, children legitimately deserve something they are asking for. I would also like to point out that people like the idea of rewards after doing something good. I have one friend whose family gets him a new electronic once he does twenty outstanding things-winning sports competitions, piano competitions, excelling in school, being nominated for academic excellence, etc. People feel entitled to things when they complete tasks-and most times, this reward is expected to be based on money or wealth. For example, the economic system of Capitalism we employ in America and countries like Europe and Canada, is based on the sole ideology that hard work reaps rewards. Isn't that the American Dream? When students work hard, we are psychologically inclined to want a reward for completing tasks. These rewards can be something small, like an ice cream sundae at the local ice cream shop, or it could be something bigger, like a Nintendo DS or an XBox 360. Despite these opinions I have about the issue, I would like to say that I greatly appreciate everything that I have and I try not to take things for granted. I can sympathize with your mentality that everyone should appreciate what they have, but simply put, life isn't like that. People are prone to take things for granted in a world that is becoming more and more oriented to judge people based on appearances, wealth, and materialistic possessions.
Kids today care too much about material possession instead of what they have.

Thank you for accepting my challenge with this debate. Before I state my opinion for this round, I would like to comment on your argument. I understand that society has evolved and as a result the people in these societies will also evolve. I also understand that there is pressure in many aspect of life that very nearly forces children to think that these materialistic objects to be a necessities, but as I stated in my previous argument, the only problem with this sorts of things will leave kids wanting for more. The problem with this is that children don't realize that these possessions doesn't equals joy. Each and every one of us know deep inside that that happiness doesn't exist in these object. But when we were born we have been told a different thing. We started chasing for money and buying things that is supposedly able to make us happy, but when in reality they are only illusions. Soon enough these kids become addicted to always having something. Another point I would like to state is that these material possessions not only change the ways a person act, but also the way a person thinks. When a person is used to having something that they don't need, they will think that those things they have are nothing. And then we would have a poor kid in another country who would kill to have what they have. We have seen this kind of attitude in movies and it's s sad that this kind of thinking exist it real life. I conclude my argument saying that life is too valuable to waste chasing possessions.
Kids today care too much about material possession instead of what they have.

Hey. I'm a kid too, and I'm happy to discuss this issue with you today. In the way I view it, people in general have become more materialistic than ever because we realize that the societies in which we function throughout value materialistic objects. Society as a whole has become more geared towards accepting and approving of those who possess things that are believed to be manifestations of popularity, wealth, and social status. The stem of the issue is how society as a whole views new objects. Things that you mentioned, such as purses and smartphones, are valued because people talk about it. They view it as something important. And because of this ideology that a majority of people use, society has deteriorated to a point where not only children, but people as a whole depreciate the value of the objects we have. However, I feel we are geared towards more materialistic things because children have it (as I feel) much tougher in the "old days." Common Core and standardized testing distributed by federal and state governments are what compel teachers to stick to a much more rigorous and standardized methods of teaching. This pressure also extends to students, or at least in the districts I live in. Students frequently compare test grades, homework answers, and academic levels to define themselves in a social class in school. Although I can not say I am a proponent of this, I want to point out that this is how society is evolving. This added pressure in school also creates a desire for nicer things. I close my opening arguments by basically stating that students want better things because they are under more pressure in school, as well as because society pressures children and people in general to do so. These materialistic objects are viewed as more valuable, and has in turn created children who feel that such luxuries are necessities.
Kids today care too much about material possession instead of what they have.

First things first, this is a friendly debate. I don't want this to turn into a nasty argument in which both debaters go home grumpy. I am a kid myself, and I would be the first one to admit that people my age these days don't care about the right stuff. This is especially hard on parents knowing that their children's would always want more than what they were given. I have befriended many people who were always talking about the next edition of a purse, or phone and sometimes even video games. What these people don't realized is that they have more than enough to survive. I get that it's always nice to have something that you have wished for a long time, but it is not okay to keep asking for more. It is frustrating to see that people of my generation are acting this way. I know from personal encounters that it only takes a few new phones and designer clothing to drive a person to act with arrogance. I think that we should focus on what we have instead of what we don't have, because it is then that a person begins turn sour. I await for my opponent and hope that we have a nice debate on this topic.