BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
to much homework is bad for students

The dictionary definition separates both of our positions. I believe the workload should be greatly increased and you believe it shouldn't. Though, I am not accusing you of saying schools should cut homework. In fact, I stated that I was sure we both agree on that not being the answer. We both see the words "too much" differently. I believe homework should be increased as long as it doesn't interfere with the student's health (rest/hygiene/fitness), time with family, a few of their hobbies/activities. You, making it clear yourself, believe a workload increase is too much when it interferes with the student's time to cause mischief. Also, you believe a student should be pardoned from his/her work, simply because they made the decision to commit themselves to four EC activities. That is the overall difference of our positions. Just remember how much free time students really have, even with a homework increase. 180 out of 365 days, in the United States, are school days. That leaves 185 free days for the students, which isn't bad at all (including national holidays). I do not understand how being physically fit has to do with being accepted into a college. Even though colleges have EC activities and clubs for fitness, the main reason to go to college is for the education. Whether you are moderately fit or a star athlete, colleges accept students for other reasons. But yes, students should be accepted for academic reasons. Colleges do not want students who can only prove that they can pass the minimum requirements of high school. Colleges want students that can succeed high school AND college. Stress, pressure, and anxiety are natural in adulthood. If students can learn ways to deal with those problems and how to manage their time at an earlier age, they will have an easier time dealing with the problems when they are faced in their adulthood. - Juggernaut
to much homework is bad for students

Thank you for accepting this debate, First to establish what too much means by the merriam webster dictionary: 1 a: great in quantity, amount, extent, or degree. Now for refutations: <<1 – The children of today will be future workers and the future voice of this country. The more educated they are, the more successful the next generation as a whole will be. I wouldn't like to know that our country's politics would be going to people who won't be much more educated than this generation is.>> First of all I never stated that children shouldn't be educated or that they should completely cut off all homework, but merely the hardships and negative effects of TOO MUCH homework, therefore they are still getting all the education they need and will still be extremly successful. <<2 – A great increase of homework will pressure the students and force them to properly manage their time. Both are needed for success in college and in career. It will allow colleges to easily separate the college-bound from the people who really aren't ready for it. If people are accustomed more work at a younger age, the world will be more industrious and successful in the future.>> An increase of homework would pressure the students but to to much of an extent. Students will be staying up until 3 a.m just trying to finish their homework and studies show students don't perform when not rested or well slept. Also what is t he sense of separating the people with a couple of time management issues and those with not and make that decide if they get into college. If people get into college it should be those you are fit for it either academically or physically. If a person is very smart but has 4 sports, of course they will not have time to finish their homework, does that mean they shouldn't go to college? << 3 – If the homework increase that I am suggesting would ever be "too much", the schools could allow more in-school time to complete it, make the homework weight slightly less on the grading paper, or be a bit more generous to the students who put great effort into their work, but still fail. But all of this should be a last resort. If students cut their television, video game, and mischief time in half, they would be able to finish the increased homework, no?>> Should life not include television, video game, and mischief all to a certain extent. Life is not just about eat, sleep, do well in school, you have to have some free time to play. I am not suggesting that the schools should not allow time to complete their homework in school or make homework weigh less etc. but that is not the topic the topic is that too much homework is BAD for students. Now to my points: Too much homework is bad because it makes them go to sleep late, and they won't perform as well in school. It also stresses kids out which hurts the brain. As well as hinder kids from having a little of free time. Thanks,
to much homework is bad for students

I'm sure we share difference of opinions on the words "too much". But I'm sure neither of us wants the education system to give out enough homework to make the students lose sleep or for homework to be greatly reduced (or eliminated). I wouldn't mind the education systems greatly increasing the workload, as long as students are learning. Pardons should be made for certain students, upon decision of the state and parents, if reducing the workload would be a benefit to their education, though. 1 – The children of today will be future workers and the future voice of this country. The more educated they are, the more successful the next generation as a whole will be. I wouldn't like to know that our country's politics would be going to people who won't be much more educated than this generation is. 2 – A great increase of homework will pressure the students and force them to properly manage their time. Both are needed for success in college and in career. It will allow colleges to easily separate the college-bound from the people who really aren't ready for it. If people are accustomed more work at a younger age, the world will be more industrious and successful in the future. 3 – If the homework increase that I am suggesting would ever be "too much", the schools could allow more in-school time to complete it, make the homework weight slightly less on the grading paper, or be a bit more generous to the students who put great effort into their work, but still fail. But all of this should be a last resort. If students cut their television, video game, and mischief time in half, they would be able to finish the increased homework, no? I have more to say, but I will wait for my opponent first. - Juggernaut
Islam is false and does not represent the Word of God.

The motion is not about Jews. The motion is that the core doctrine of Islam is false and does not represent the Word of God. Con must be a troll or does not understand the motion. For the sake of the debate (even though I'm getting the notion that he is a troll) First, I'll be explaining the life of Muhammad and why his actions in life are a good indicator that Islam is not a religion of peace. I'll be assuming that you know somewhat the history of Muhammad and his life so I can skip the historical part. My focus is on the Qu'ran and various Islamic sources known as the hadiths. Muhammad in his lifetime has conducted 65 campaigns of war. This has led to Islam's growth and power. The reason Islam has grown and spread during the life of Muhammad was because of his conquest. When Muhammad was at Medina he first directed his followers to invade caravans during the holy months. Muhammad then provided convenient relevations from Allah which allowed his followers to murder innocent people. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). Let's fast forward to the Qurayza Massacre. Even after the Qurayza peacefully surrendered, Muhammad was determined to have every man of the tribe executed. He ordered a ditch dug outside the town and the victims were brought to him in several groups. Each boy had their head cut off and thrown in the trench along with their body. Sounds familiar to a certain group? Between 700 to 900 men were killed even after they surrendered. Jihad and Jizya are methods created by Muhammad to assert his power. Before Muhammad died, he ordered some 30,000 troops to march onto Christian lands (Byzantine at the time). However there is no evidence that this force assembled but he did want this to happen before he died. Muhammad DID subjugate the local people and extorted "protection" money from them. This is known as the jizya, which is a tax that a non-muslim pays to a muslim. "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (9:29) Most of the Arabic tribes acknowledged Muhammad's quest for power and they pledged to convert without a fight. Were they converting because of faith in Muhammad or fear for their lives? Of course they were fearful, why else lay down your life to a powerful war leader? One of the last remaining tribes is the al-Harith, and Muhammad told the chief that they had 3 days to convert or he would send his army to their tribe.
Islam is false and does not represent the Word of God.

I think that Muslims are right. But we should kill all of them. All the false stuff against muslims was created by the jews. There are many great sites that prove that the jews did 9/11 and that they hate muslims. They actually created isis, but then we muslims reclaimed it from the jews and returned it to its former glory. May God Praise Allah. Allahu Akbar حائل هتلر ستة ستة ستة الغاز اليهود أنا أكره كل المسلمين والسود علينا قتل كل منهم تمتص الدهون بلدي الديك ش حقيبة يهودي
Should suicide be a crime

Let me preface by saying that I personally do not endorse either side of the resolution currently, but will uphold the position of Pro for the integrity and sake of debate. Justification 1: Suicide is not Victimless All individuals can affect another individual in some way through the act of suicide. This can occur through multiple ways. Firstly, loved ones, friends, and family members can suffer emotional trauma due to the suicide of an individual. An individual engaging in suicide can inflict emotional distress on these individuals. This emotional distress can manifest itself through physical attributes as well. Insomnia and loss of appetite can be two of these manifestations. Justification 2: Moral Precedence The government has set a precedence of intervening through legal means to protect citizenry against things harmful/detrimental. Ex: Warning Labels, Cigarette Tax, Alcohol Laws. The government has precedence to protect its citizens.
Abortion should be legal up through the second trimester, regardless of circumstance

The issue of abortion has been hotly debated ever since the the Supreme Court ruling for Roe V. Wade went into effect. Both sides are deeply rooted in emotion, one side believing that it is an issue of saving human lives while the other believes it is a fundamental right for women. For this debate, will wish to put aside the usual emotional bickering and get down to the facts. My main contention is: Why is it that we, as a society, will accept the slaughter of a pig for food? Or the hunting of a deer for sport? Or the extermination of pests infesting a home? While there could be multiple reasonings, one of the more pervading ideas is that humans are "special". Many pro-life supporters will argue that humans differ from other animals in that we have souls; a supernatural life force. While I do believe that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, giving us more rights, I do not believe this is because of a soul. Simply put, there is no scientific backing for the presence of a soul. What, then, makes us "more important" than other animals? I believe it is our consciousness; an individual's awareness of unique thoughts, memories, and sensations. The consciousness of a human is higher than that of a pig. The pig does have thoughts, memories, and sensations but not on the same level of a human. We have higher intellects, emotional expressivity, and society cooperation (altruism). This is the reason we should not slaughter humans for sport. When does consciousness arise? We know for a fact that the cluster of cells one week into the development doesn't have any thoughts. We have scientifically discovered that consciousness in humans begins, in a primitive state, between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy [1]. Considering that consciousness is not present in 1-2 trimester old fetuses, they are just that: fetuses. They lack what other humans, with rights, have. 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com... I await my opponent's response.
Abortion should be legal up through the second trimester, regardless of circumstance

Round Structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Opening statements (No refutations) 3. Counter arguments 4. Counter arguments + closing statement This will be a policy debate about abortion in the United States. My goal is to support the conclusion that pregnancy termination procedures should be made legal to all women, so long as the procedure takes place during either the first or second trimester (approx 26 weeks after conception), regardless of a women's reasoning for seeking this procedure. My opponent should either be arguing that a woman should only be able to receive an abortion under special circumstances (ex. rape, threatening the health of the mother) or for the abolishment of the practice all together. This debate WILL NOT be concerned with government policies that would either support or inhibit the accessibility (recent controversies over the closing of abortion clinics on technicalities) or affordability of abortions (whether or not a business would need to provide an insurance plan covering abortion). This is simply concerned with the practice itself.
transcendental meditation for prisoners

My opponent is trying to sound smart, which is fine but for the purpose of this debate he is presenting a 90% nonsensical argument while I am giving clear concise reasons as to why TM is a good ethical tool for all prisoners to have access to. I state that my opponent is trying to act "smart" because it doesn't require much intellect to copy and paste a bunch of words he probably can't decipher without a dictionary. How do I know this is the case? people talked about it here: http://www.debate.org... and people have used this identical argument: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I will reiterate my point that I made from the start. I gave numerous reasons as to why TM is 1. beneficial even if only proven for the purpose of self realization and relaxation 2. not a religion or cult so there's no argument for controversy 3. my opponent has not come up with arguments relevant to the topic on this debate, or that hasn't been already refuted my me. I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. I would also like to make the point big words don't necessarily make a good argument. To conclude Be tough on crime Be tough on the causes of crime As I have stated: criminality lies in the way people think and make decisions. TM benefits the prisoner in ways they help them make better choices. For all that take the time to read this, watch this little video even for a minute about prisoners who have had the opportunity to try TM. I believe that all prisoners should have TM implemented into their rehab program as there are -no negative side effects -it can be used in conjunction with other approaches -in the long run it will be cheaper to fund this than the taxpayers dollars that pay for recurring offenders http://www.youtube.com...
transcendental meditation for prisoners

C1: "TM is Good For You"My opponent's source is a website that owns a TM program. It is clearly biased. Unless my opponent provides more independent, believable research, we should not take the source used.Several indpendent studies have found that TM has no health benefits besides relaxation. [1] My sources, are indpendent. My opponent is citing a TM program who financially profits from TM. It is most likely that the benefits of TM my opponent describes are not from TM itself. It is probably just an internal belief that makes relaxation apparent. TM has shown not to have any health benefits. C2: Unconstitutional"Millions of people have learned the Transcendental Meditation program from all religious faiths, including priests, rabbis, and ministers, and they find no conflict between the practice and their religions. [2]The Federal Government never declared the TM program is a religion. Numerous government programs involving the TM program have been approved by the government for implementing or researching the TM program in health facilities, schools, universities, research facilities, prisons and probation programs.[2]"By looking at my opponent's source, the second part is plagiarized. Plus, the US government has determined that TM is a religion or a cult. In Malnak v Yogi, the US courts determined that TM is religious under the establishment clause. It was ruled unconstitutional to teach TM to students in high schools because it violated the separation of church and state. If it is illegal to do it in schools because it violates the separation of church and state, making TM mandatory in prisons would have the same consequence: it's unconstitutional.^ THIS has not been refuted "TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more than Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory, conceived of by Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. No religious beliefs are involved.ConclusionTo hold the opinion that the TM program is a religion is to ignore an enormous body of scientific research which demonstrates clearly that it is not a religion."Also plagiarized. Also, I have refuted this.Conclusion:Until my opponent can clearly prove otherwise, TM has no health benefits besides relaxation. TM has been found the court system that TM is religious in nature, and therefore would violate the separation of church and state. Thus, making TM mandatory for prisoners would be unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org...
transcendental meditation for prisoners

I look forward to your humor, but I'll maintain a more serious stance on the issue to state why Transcendental Meditation (TM) should be implemented into prisons as a mandatory part of their rehabilitation. TM is a solution to the overcrowding and high rate of repeated incarceration among convicts. So far, there is nothing in place that seems to work towards this problem. Charles Alexander, a Harvard researcher started TM programs in state prisons in Massachusetts, said the federal government is "open to solutions because nothing else has worked. " Building more prisons isn't feasible, and many times convicts are eventually released without the the help and tools they need to become citizens that can lead a successful lives. I will lay out several arguments as to why TM is a perfect moral way to address prisoners as they serve time. The theory of free will can explain criminal behaviour. Here are two important points. •ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their decisions. •ï¿½ Crime occurs because the criminal wills it or chooses it, and it is this choice they make that rehabilitation must deal with. Source: . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... Transcendental meditation's ability to foster inner clarity and peace overrides the desire to commit crimes. Scientific Proof On a certain study by a university the rate of repeat convictions dropped to 5 percent from 90 percent in six months, and three prisons had to be closed for lack of demand due to using TM. Its effects and benefits have been documented by more than 600 scientific research studies conducted at 200 universities and research institutions in 35 countries. The National Institutes of Health has contributed more than $21 million to verify the benefits of the TM technique. No other program has received this level of attentionï¿½and respect from the scientific community. Source: . http://www.neurosoup.com... EASY AND EFFECTIVE TM is effective and easy to learn, natural, and runs no risks. It can be done in just 20 minutes once or twice a day. As a person gets used to it they can increase the time. Little effort and no specific level of education is required, along with so anyone can learn to do it. You don't even have to believe that it works to start. TM provides a restful alertness, therefore giving a person a more settled state of awareness. In this state, even a person who has committed crimes can find greater creativity, improved learning, higher moral reasoning which are important skill offenders need to acquire. Another aspect that makes it perfect for all prisoners besides the moral reasons is that it is for all. TM is not a religion, a philosophy, or a lifestyle. Therefore, TM cannot contradict any persons religion, philosophy, or lifestyle. It can be used along with drugs and education. Robert Wynne, dean of faculty at Maharishi said, "transcendental meditation has proven to be an effective drug treatment program. " Source: . http://articles.chicagotribune.com...
transcendental meditation for prisoners

Well, FIRST OFF, I am going to try to use both real and humorous arguments in this debate. Plus, since my opponent did not name any definitions, I have the opportunity to lay some down: Transcendental Meditation (TM): A specific form of mantra meditation, and to the TM movement.Prisoners: A person who is confined in prison or kept in custody, especially as the result of legal process. Most usually a criminal.**This Debate will almost certainly use videos to display my position, but they will most certainly not be boring, but will be relating to my position in a way that conveys my side. They will not be long either.Good Luck!
Pronunciation of Nutella as (Nuh)tella

I see what you mean. The only research I did, Was google the correct pronunciation. The results I got were that it is pronounced (new)tella. I also reviewed YouTube videos on Nutella commercials, And I heard (new)tella. According to statistics; the majority of people pronounce Nutella as (nuh)tella, While the minority pronounces it (new)tella.
Pronunciation of Nutella as (Nuh)tella

It must depend upon where you come from. Nut-ella flows sweetly enough for me. Nut-ella is also more direct and to the point. It says what it is. Sweet nuts hey! New-tella is insipid and sickly and certainly doesn't do the product any favours. I did a bit of simple research myself and Nu is the thirteenth letter of the Greek alphabet and Tella is Ethiopian beer.
Pronunciation of Nutella as (Nuh)tella

You have a valid argument. In fact, The name Nutella is derived from the English word 'nut' and the Latin suffix for sweet - 'ella'. So it would seem quite obvious that it should be called Nutella. But when you do the research in simple places, You'll find that the pronunciation is incorrect. Referring to your point on my incorrect use of bracketing - using the brackets as (nuh)tella, Is more smooth as you pronounce it. Bracketing Nutella as (nut)ella, Your putting more emphasis on nut and it sounds like nut_ella; where as the bracketing I use, (nuh)tella - the main emphasis is on tella: nu_tella.
Pronunciation of Nutella as (Nuh)tella

Hey! Things are never clear cut are they. I suppose that Nut-ella is relative to my mental conditioning. But really, I don't mind either way. As it is, I'm not particularly fond of Nutella and never purchase it anyway. You say Toe-may toe and I say Toe-mar-toe You say Al-oo-min-um and I say Al-u-min-ium.