BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

My statement is short and simple . It is that major forms of religion (such as , Judaism, Christianity and Islam just to name a few) is mostly detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education and humanity as it surely does not help the overall well being of anyone and this includes fundamentalist belief and extremism forms of religion. Also belief in moral codes handed down by the beliefs in monotheistic and poly theistic religions .Before we continue I must say it is not my intention to pick on any one religion most of them have the same attributes: 1) belief in the supernatural, 2) a moral code with supernatural origins, and 3) the need to spread their beliefs to the uninitiated. I will not be arguing on the existence of any god as that is another debate entirely I will simple be arguing that religions teaching itself and their followers and that it cultivates narrow-mindedness, arrogance, ignorance, delusion, unjustified hatred of others, and unjustified violence toward others opponent is to use logic , facts and reason in his arguments and so am I. This is my first debate on this site so forgive me in advance if I do not know the proper etiquette. Well I am looking forward to someone challenging my statement my opponent is to show that major forms of religion are beneficial to the overall well being of society and that it is beneficial to the world.
College football playoff system

--"As you say, a triple-elimination 256 team playoff system would be way to long" I never said that. A triple-elimination 256 team playoff would be just long enough. --"if they played that many games, they would retire long before the average age now of 34" So we continue to have young, fresh players. This is a good thing. --"education is very important" To quote my opponent: "I do not prefer education over football." He also drops all 3 of my arguments about education. --"That would be to long and to many players would get hurt, and ruin their chances to go to the NFL." The average college football player spends about 45 hours per week practicing[1] to play for, at most, one hour per game. The extra hours spent in the playoffs would amount to about 2 days worth of practice. This is no significant increase in the probability of a player being hurt. ======== =Summary= ======== CON never rebutted any of my arguments, gave multiple new (unwarranted) arguments in the final rebuttal, and never even used the word 'BCS' in his last speech. [1] http://www.mindingthecampus.com...
College football playoff system

As a fan, I do not prefer education over football. As you say, a triple-elimination 256 team playoff system would be way to long, longer then the NFL complete season playoffs and regular season combined. If you truly want the players to succeed, you would not put them through that long of a season, for if they played that many games, they would retire long before the average age now of 34. Plus, education is very important, they must think of the factor of: "what if I don't get drafted? What will I do then?" I love college football, but not enough to see players get hurt because they are put through to long of a season. By that I mean do not put them through a triple-elimination 256 team playoff. That would be to long and to many players would get hurt, and ruin their chances to go to the NFL.
College football playoff system

My opponent seems to value football LESS than education. He can't be serious, can he? Let's consider the two. ======== =education= ======== 1. These kids don't want an education. Only 56% of college football players graduate.[1] Many take classes like music appreciation, basket weaving, or flower design, so that they won't have to actually do any work. The majority even view them selves as athletes first and foremost, and students second.[2] 2. The ones that want education still get education. Football is not a hindrance because athletes are provided with extra help from teachers[3] and, covertly, students. 3. Football is beneficial to the athlete's education. Football teaches cooperation, social skills, the ability to take instruction, the ability to cope with stress, and optimism.[4] Sports also prepare one physically, and promote the maintenance of good health. ======= =Football= ======= Lots of people like college football.[5][6][7] How many people like watching former athletes earn a subpar salary with their degree in liberal arts? Not many. Nobody cares about these athletes' education; they care about watching them play football. Football is a far higher priority, because those degrees that are being gained are useless anyway. Don't forget, playing football is optional. If for some crazy reason one of these players doesn't actually want to play, he can quit playing. Having extra games harms nobody. --- Thus, I advocate a triple-elimination 256 team bracketed playoff to determine the national college champion. [1] http://www.newamerica.net... [2] http://www.mindingthecampus.com... [3] http://www.classesandcareers.com... [4] http://www.ehow.com... [5] http://www.helium.com... [6] http://www.harrisinteractive.com... [7] http://www.denverpost.com...
College football playoff system

I understand there are many arguments that the Pro contenders can make, but what I have to back this up, I feel is much better than theirs. Now I am using a Bama player in this point because I know a lot about him. Mark Ingram is on the Deans list to graduate early. If you asked him how hard it was to do that he would probably say something around the matters of immensely, for my life in football and academics, collide heavily. Players have have class in the mornings, and practice in the afternoon, in the evening, which they get about a few hours at the most, depending on the time they will go to sleep that night. Will go to the Library to catch up on school work, then other nights will go to the weight room for workouts. While in other nights they will read over the Playbook so they will know what to do during their upcoming game. Yes, the way they work out their evening schedule is up to them, some Athletic Associations require a minimum amount of days to read over the playbook, and got to the Library. The NCAA requires a player to have a minimum GPA of 2.0. If you pay close attention to the players who focus on only football, they will end up not able to play under NCAA sanctions. The players that level it out have an average of a 2.8 GPA, but their skills and decision making on the field don't match up to others. The players that focus only on school, which is not a bad thing, have an average of 3.5-4.0 GPA, but lack skills in almost every category. In that case, I am for a 10-14 game season. Save the playoffs for the NFL.
College football playoff system

Ok, if you are a fan of college football, then yall all know that there is a big debate over the BCS. Me, I am for the BCS and against a playoff season. I against the playoff system for numerous reasons. One, it is hard enough on the players, the already play 10-14 games a season (depending on the factor of bowl eligibility and if your conference has a championship game, and if you make it there). I will admit I am a Bama fan. Don't come back with the argument that I like the BCS because it favors Alabama because it is a big time school. Yes, they play in the SEC (arguably the hardest conference to go undefeated in, Florida proved that), but, Alabama's last National Title game was in 1992, the BCS wasn't created until 1998. TCU, Cincinnati, they had their chances at the Title game, but they didn't control their own destiny. Bama and Texas both won out, in the two hardest conferences in most peoples eyes. So yall cant say that the BCS favors Bama, it doesn't. In fact the two polls that factor into it, Coaches and USA Today, both have the majority of their voters from the North. Which in fact, most people in the North hate Alabama, I'm not saying everyone from the North, just the sportswriters and a lot of the fans. So with that said, I am against playoffs.
Children should have LESS homework!

Sorry for the late response, and the small argument. I was running out of time.So for this round, I am simply explaining how no matter how much homeowork you have, you may still have stress. Basically, stress applies to a spicific person, depending on how they experiance things. For example, a lot of homework may be normal to someone, but someone else could be stressed. So in the end, no matter how much homework you have, 1 person may see it as stressfull, even if it is just 1 page of homework. Lowering the amount of homework would not effect children when it comes to stress. But keeping the amount of homework already given would improve their learning, help with understanding concepts, and teach lessons for their everyday lives. Having less homework would diminish the amount of extra lessons their learn. In conclusion, homework is already at a good amount. Some people see the amount of stress put into to it differently, so lowering the amount would not apply to all students. So there is no point of lowering homework, considering there would be no benefit from doing such.
Children should have LESS homework!

I understand Kids don't always get right down into homework, and that yes it does review and help understand the concept of whatever you are learning. I also understand that the curriculum is pushing the limit of amount in homework. There are 3rd graders ( 8 year olds) getting 3 hours of home work. That's crazy! At that age you are suppose to be outside with your friends and or family. You're only that young fun age once in your life time I think parents would like to spend as much time with them at that age as possible! Homework is way too stressful these days! Kids in high school are dropping out. Sometimes kids are so stressed out that they think there is no other way and they commit suicide. Homework is beginning to become more of a bad thing than a good thing. Grades are becoming lower than normal and the homework isn't even helping!
Children should have LESS homework!

Hello friend! I thank pro for creating this debate. For this debate, I will start off with simply my contentions.Contention I: Homework is important. Homework is an important thing that students have. As you have already said, school is around 6-7 hours long. Now the cirriculum has to fit a specific amount of work into the year. For example, the math cirriculum has to fit around 10 chapters into a year, and they only have a small limited time to fit all of it in. So homework is an easy way to fit it in, after school. It reinforces your lessons to insure you understand the concepts, and also covers areas you were not able to complete in class. Homework helps in such areas, thereby underlining it's importance.Contention II: Homework helps with responsibility, and orginization. Homework helps in a variety of areas. Not only is it important, but it aids students in being responsible and orginized. Children need to be responsible in brining back their homework, and they need to be orginized, and understand where everything is. As you can see, homework helps in both these areas, aiding students. Homework helps them to practice these things in not only school, but in their daily lives.Contention III: Students don't spend as much time as they think they do. Now everyday, we always here students complaining on how they have "too much" homework, and that they don't have enough time for it. However, in reality, they have plenty of time. We did this study in class, in order to find out how much time we really spend doing our homework. Now first of all, we all know that we need at least 8 hours of sleep. So now let us assume we all sleep at 11:00. And once again lets assume school ends at 3:00. This gives us 8 hours to do our homework, but how much of this time do we really use? Okay so a lot of kids do after school activities, around 79%! [1] Most after school activities only last about an hour. And then people have dinner, 1 more hour. And then chores, another hour. So this would leave us with 5 hours. So when you think about it, 5 hours is plenty of time to do homework, however people don't use it wisely. When you get home, do you do your homework right away? or do you go on social media websites, watch tv, and play minecraft? Students have plenty of time to do homework, considering they have 5 hours each day, and some homework is due in more than 1 day. The amount of homework we get is just right, and students have plenty of time to do their homework. Now that you have read my contentions, let us see what lowering the amount of homework we get would do. All it would do would make children lazier, and spend less time on work because they have less to do. Furthermore it would lower the benefits of having homework. There is no point in having less homework, it teaches many lessons, and reinforces previous ones. Because of such, the amount of homework we get is perfect, and there is no point in having less.BACK TO YOU PRO! :DSource(s):1.http://www.publicagenda.org...
Children should have LESS homework!

Children need less homework it is cutting the balance of their daily lives! They go to school from 7:00 am to 2:45 pm then have 8 hours of homework! Children with after school activities don't get home sometimes until 5:00 or even 6:00! Where does this leave them? Stressed out and up until 1:30 am is this isn't fair! Teenagers minds and bodies are still growing and all this stress of homework is putting a dent in their growth! Now a days kids aren't even doing well and or dropping out because of homework! Its been increasing and increasing I don't think its fair, I think we need a change!
We should ban smoking in public places.

"Firstly,its a bad influence on our children. Young children will see people smoking and start thinking its okay or that its "cool" to smoke. Once they think its all right,they will start smoking"I'd like to point out that no rational has been given as to why children would accept smoking. Why would they choose to accept it rather than reject it? Not everything a child has seen is deemed "cool". We already have programs in schools [1] that shows how smoking is bad, and how it affects your health. Once a child is the legal age of 18, they must have the right to smoke if they want to. We can also point out two more major flaws in his argument: The slippery slope fallacy, [2]and the fact that the number of smokers has gone down to an all new low, even though it was allowed in public places. [3] If having it in public places increases the amount of smokers, how come It has not increased, but in fact decreased? "Secondly when people walk past a person that's smoking in a public place, they can smell it or breathe it in,which wont be good for there health,pets and children. So it will affect the people around them. Even smelling cigarette smoke is bad for you" You are not forced to walk directly into the smoke. It is also bad to be in front of campfire smoke, but obviously we don't ban fire in public places. Why? Well we assume people would have the wisdom to step to the side a bit and not jump in front of a giant smoke cloud. "Thirdly,the cigarette smoke lingers and can get stuck in peoples clothes and shirts"Con has not shown a single source for this. Yet again not a shred of evidence. "Lastly,if we ban smoking in public places then children wont be influenced to smoke and people wont be smelling and breathing in the cigarette smoke"I think this was the same as the first few points. Nothing new here. I await your responses to my claims. [1]. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... [2] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[3] . http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...
We should ban smoking in public places.

I believe that we should ban smoking in public places. Firstly,its a bad influence on our children.Young children will see people smoking and start thinking its okay or that its "cool" to smoke.Once they think its all right,they will start smoking. Secondly when people walk past a person that's smoking in a public place, they can smell it or breathe it in,which wont be good for there health,pets and children.So it will affect the people around them.Even smelling cigarette smoke is bad for you. Thirdly,the cigarette smoke lingers and can get stuck in peoples clothes and shirts. Lastly,if we ban smoking in public places then children wont be influenced to smoke and people wont be smelling and breathing in the cigarette smoke.Here is a link showing that smoke free laws are saving lives: http://healthland.time.com... I wish my opponent luck and if your going to use a link to show evidence please use a reliable source that means no yahoo,Wikipedia,youtube and so on. In conclusion I say that we should ban smoking in public places. Thank you.
The portrayal of high profile females in the media goes against femininity

It's all in the title- I am arguing that the portrayal of high profile females (can be celebrities or fictional characters such as in video games) in the media (newspapers, social media etc) ruins the image of femininity (the belief that ultimately, both sexes should be equal) in the public mind This basically means anything you want it to. Eg. Cosmetic surgery ruins the image of femininity And Female video game characters ruin the image of femininity etc. 1st round is simply acceptance All other rounds are anything Keep it fairly clean Good luck :)
I don't know why I molest children

I don't know why I molest children People often ask me Why do you molest children Why are they so attractive What do they have Why are you like this To these questions I don't have an answer I don't know why I molest children But I know that I do I don't know why are they so attractive But I know that they are I don't know why am I like this But I know that I am I don't know why I think That having sex with children Is the best thing ever But I know that it is what I think This is my target, This is my goal I would sacrifice a lot to achieve it I don't know why I do it But I know that I do I don't need to know all the answers In order to act I just need my desire And a means of act I like children and that is the fact
Sport Is a Man"s World

Yes, there may be professional leagues for women. And yes there are SOME famous female athletes too and some female reporters too. I never said there weren't any. I just said that MOST of the athletes, reporters and audience are males. But first, lets just recap our topic: Sport's is a man's world. Now, it all depends on how you interpret it, but to me, I think it means that woman are allowed to do sport but it's really all that men can do. For instance, women clean, wash, cook and work. Men play sport. It's all they do. It's there world.It's what they do best. And you said that Serena Williams gets lots of media attention, though this is the first time I've even heard her name. So I leave you with the fact that sport is indeed a man's world. And you also spelt attention wrong.
Sport Is a Man"s World

Thank you for instigating this debate. Since round 1 was not for acceptance. I will post my opening argument in this round. 1: There are professional leagues for women There are professional leagues for women to play in. The WNBA, for example, gets a lot of media attenion, with lots of their games being broadcasted on ESPN, one of the largest sports networks in the world. 2: Reporters a lot of times are women There are numerous reporters who are women. Some women reporters include Erin Andrews and Heather Cox. In fact, women reporters are usually at the better sporting events. Just recently, Erin Andrews was reporting the Woeld Series. 3: There are some famous female athletes too There are a lot of famous female athletes. Some include Serena Williams, who gets lots of media attenion, Danica Patrick, and Mia Hamm. I await my opponent's arguments.
Sport Is a Man"s World

Sport is a man's world. At least, that's the impression I get when I watch any. Reporters are mostly men, reporting on mostly men with mostly men watching. So no one was surprised when Usain Bolt, Yohan Blake and Justin Gatlin came first, second and third in the 100 metres race in the Olympics. And look at Carl Lewis, who won 10 Olympic medals including 9 gold, and 10 World Championships medals, including 8 gold. And let"s not forget Michael Phelps, who won the most medals in the history of the Olympics. 18 gold, 2 silver and 2 bronze. That"s 22 medals all together. And here you are, Negative Team, trying to debate that sports isn"t just a man"s world, when, clearly, it is.
Sport Is a Man"s World

Rebuttals: My opponent states that women "clean, wash cook, and work". 1: My opponent makes a generalization, without having any evidence to back it up. 2: If women "clean, wash cook, and work", why are there numerous female athletes, and woen who do other professions? My opponent also states that "Women can play sport but it's really all men can do". 1: There are numerous other jobs men do besides sports such as, running a business, teaching, lawyer, and numerous other professions. 2: My opponent makes another generalization without backing it up. My opponent has not shown any reasons why sports is a mans world, and therefore, has not yet met the BOP. I await my opponent's arguments.
The Bible is Valid

Although it is not beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is legitimate, genuine evidence of God's existence, which is given here: http://www.godisreal.info... The existence of God implies that the Bible is valid as an important statement in the Bible is that God loves you. The verses saying that God loves you are shown at this URL: -http://www.openbible.info... If He loves us, why is there punishment, suffering, and hell? Hell-Because God can't let lack of salvation into heaven or it won't be any different from hell, which it is. Punishment- For humanity's sins. Suffering- to strengthen our faith. After all, if a ghost inexplicably appeared out of nowhere and made all the bad stuff quit happening, would you not simply think you were seeing things and forget it ever happened? -If you read the entire book of Proverbs or Psalm, you will likely find something in there that you will know applies to you. -There is no archaeological proof that any Biblical character (e.g. David or Samson) did not exist or that any major event (David killing Goliath, though Goliath was a giant, and David was short, for instance) never happened. Also, there is no archaeological proof of David actually being huge or Goliath being the weakling, so it still remains logical to believe the Bible. How do we know that there are not a bunch of deities? Just give me any deity that anyone ever believed in besides the Christian God (e.g. the Greek god Zeus) and I can disprove them. Conclusion: the Bible is valid because God is real, He loves us, and He is the only God.
The Bible is Valid

We can actually apply the Bible to our own lives, and famous Christians will tell you the same thing. If you ask Louisiana pastor and Duck Dynasty star Alan Robertson, he will tell you that the following passage happened to his family: Psalm 128:1-4: "Blessed are all who fear the LORD, who walk in obedience to him. You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessing and prosperity will be yours. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Yes, this will be the blessing for the man who fears the LORD." I read this on page 2 in the Duck Dynasty cast's book, "The Duck Commander Devotional." How does the passage apply to them? Robertson's father, Phil Robertson dedicated his life to God and to Jesus, then he was able to start Duck Commander, and then he married a very kind woman named Kay, who is often referred to simply as "Ms. Kay." In the passage and others like it, "fear" means "obey," and "walk" means "live."