BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Give me one good reason for not believing in God

God doesn't exist because God is a man made phenomenon. God was created and is still being created because it serves the purpose of its creator. The creator is usually a person who is in charge of, or is a ruling class person with responsibilities. The God myth serves the purpose of creating an easy explanation of complex natural occurrences. For example - When a child asks its parents some embarrassing questions like - "Where did the sky come from Daddy?" It would be far easier for Daddy to reply that "God created it" than to explain the complex physics of light, gravity, matter and planet formation etc. Thus, we can see that religions would naturally evolve over time as a means of simplifying the task of parenting. The ruling classes need religion for similar purposes. If you can create an internal prison of the mind (religion) than, you have less need to build expensive external prisons.
homework should be banned

Homework: the backbone of learning. It is crucial that homework should not be banned. Even the thought is unfounded. Homework should certainly not be banned for many reasons. First of all, homework increases your mental ability. Studies have shown that people who do more homework or studying are more likely to be smarter, rather than the people who don"t. This unaided just proves why homework is of such great importance. People need to do well in tests, which will help them to get a job in the future. Being intelligent just helps you all through life. Homework makes you cleverer, and if this is the case, why would you want to sanction it"this impression is just erroneous on so many levels. Continuing on, surveys have even shown that homework dramatically increases your smartness. Furthermore, homework also helps you to work at your own pace. At school, you work at the same pace as everyone around you more or less. When set homework is given to you, it"s your chance to work independently, giving you many great qualities such as independence (that"s a given), individuality and much, much more. This is also good because when you get to university you will have great study skills. The skills that homework gives you are vital to your everyday life. Moreover, homework also gives you something stimulating to do. It is imperative to develop good brain patterns when you are young and doing homework can help you to achieve this. It"s very important that kids spend their time doing something productive and stimulating, otherwise all your brainpower is going to go to waste. When children get home from school, homework prevents them from wasting their lives playing video games and other unhealthy activities. Continuing on, you may argue that sport and other extra-curricular activities such as sport and socialising give your brain the same amount of "exercise" as homework, but this is just not spot-on. A fantastic way to stimulate your brain is to do homework. We need a balance between sport, socialising, and education. Homework provides this education. So, evidently, it is clear to see that homework should unquestionably not be banned because it gives you something stimulating to do, improves your mental ability, helps you to work at your own pace and helps maintain an educational balance in your life. Homework: the backbone of learning.
Education should focus on maths and science rather than music and art

I agree with you about math and science. Music and art exercise special recognition, Which is a good quality for architects, Computer programmers, Drafters, Etc. They also teach muscle memory, Which give them the ability to perform complex, Repetitive tasks, Much like the ones that you would expect to see in manufacturing jobs. Painters make great surgeons because surgeons have to succeed on the first try and so do painters, Etc. The least we can say is that these subjects are far from useless.
Education should focus on maths and science rather than music and art

I will explain my first point Math and science provide us with basic knowledge which will certainly help in our daily life as well as broaden our horizons For example, Basic knowledge about geometry will form a foundation on how things shape or in-depth knowledge about structure of constructions such as our own house. As it is undeniable that these kinds of knowledge play an important role in our developing process, Math and science are essential subjects which should be fully focused.
Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene

Nature v. Nurture I believe that being successful or a failure depends on the genes and not on the hardwork put on by the individual. Boys and Girls who are lucky enough to get all the good genes from their parents are destined to always win. While on the other hand the people who have bad genes cannot succeed no matter how hard they try. In simple words - Men & Women with good genes are Priceless. Because when a child is born of parents belong to 2 different race only one thing can happen- the Offsprng is a hybrid so we call them Priceless. The Bell Curve From time to time, there have been inflammatory articles which present and interpret evidence of IQ differences between groups (in particular Jensen, 1969). The most recent, and most major of these publications was Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) "The Bell Curve". This book provided momentum to swing the pendulum in the direction of 'nature', at least in the public's eye, but even more so, it generated massive debate and controversy in psychology, sociology, education, and politics, not to mention the media and household. The 800+ page book, written for laypersons, hit the best-seller lists in the U.S. "The work's main thesis is that an individual's intelligence - no less than 40% and no more than 80% of which is inherited genetically from his or her parents - has more effect than socioeconomic background on future life experiences." In addition to the premise that measured intelligence (IQ) is largely genetically inherited, a second important premise was that IQ is correlated positively with a variety of measures of socioeconomic success in society, such as a prestigious job, high annual income, and high educational attainment; and is inversely correlated with criminality and other measures of social failure. It was suggested that SES successes (and failures) are largely genetically caused. Unlike people from Canada who are inferior as a result of inbreeding, people from US & Europe who come from mixture of different race are more superior in intelligence. That is why US does everything for Canada. Let the 1st Round Begin
Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene

Unfortunately my opponent can't handle the fact that he's too incompetent enough to debate properly, so he resorts to monotonous and trite "insults" against women in a desperate attempt to look as un-pathetic as possible (it's not working). His "class clown syndrome" i.e. trying to use humor to mask his blatant lack of intelligence is failing miserably. Nobody thinks he's smart, funny, or apparently attractive (or else he'd have a girlfriend and something better do with his time then post useless debates). I'm going to go make myself a sandwich right now; Pro can hold his breath for his. Extend my arguments. Thank you.
Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene

Genes architect your Fate Stella McCartney succeeded because of her superior genes- It is clear. You are a naive when observing the human nature when it is clearly decided by genes. 1. Street Smarts have bad genes Street smarts may get B+ or even A (if they cheat), maybe they will be better in playing the guitar, maybe they will play college basketball like a pro but it does not change the fact that they are inferior. Inferior to the Book Smarts. But in what ways. The Book Smart will always earn more than a Street Smart. Let me give you a very good example- Bill Gates was a nerd and got out of college not because he could not keep up with college but the college could not keep up with him. He would be the founder of Microsoft and make billions of dollars. Lets say that Bill Gates was a book smart. And there is Kanye West- the man who was confident, cocky in his high school years. He also left college and went on to become one of the greatest rapper living today. He is a Millionaire. Did you observe ? There is a huge difference between a Millionaire and a Billionaire. Millionaire- Street Smart Billionaire- Book Smart Book is better than socializing with people- That's the Truth. You are worng, wrong, wrong, wrong. You are always wrong. What did Kanye west do when Taylor Swift wont the CMA ? He ruined it. He clearly had bad genes. Look at Obama- the Book Smart. There is a huge difference between Obama and Kanye West. Good genes is linked to success: Why are Brazilian women hotter than most girls ? 24% of women who have signed for Victoria Secret are Brazilians. It's in the genes. Brazil is full of mix race- as I said earlier when one race mixes with another a Hybrid is born. Take an example of China- All their women look the same. There is no variety And what I said about Canada is the truth. If I had a choice between drinking a water mixed with cyanide and going to Canada then I would choose the glass of water. And my opponent is always wrong. I would like to tell something to my opponent and hope she reads this- "Woman! Your argument is invalid. Go and make me a sandwich."
Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene

== Rebuttal == My opponent's first link about Stella McCartney is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't prove a thing; all it does is quote Paul McCartney talking about his daughter's good genes. His second link/argument regarding the race horse is also irrelevant considering that the horse is not human, and thus the relevant factors mentioned in my contentions that extend beyond nature do not apply. == Arguments == Please extend all of my arguments as my opponent has not responded to any of them. Thank you.
Privacy should be valued over security

Privacy is far more important for society than security. When we examine what privacy stands for, we realise that it essentially translates to freedom. If you take away a man's privacy, you are taking away his freedom and this is something that we simply do not do and that modern governments do not stand for. 1. Privacy is a basic human right Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." It is important to recognise that we cannot violate these basic Human Rights Laws put forward by the United Nations. If we undermine and take away something as simple as privacy, then we are undermining all our basic human rights. 2. Our privacy is our freedom Everybody deserves the right to do whatever they want, as long as it is legal, without the scrutiny or surveillance of anyone else, including governments. They should be allowed to go on the internet knowing that they are not being secretly monitored by some agency. They should be allowed to pass through airport security without their naked bodies being scrutinised by others. We all know that everyone has a right to a fair trial and in fact, this is a foundation of our democracy. But a fair trial is where someone is innocent until they proven otherwise with evidence that they have done something wrong. When a person's internet browsing is monitored for possible wrongdoing or suspicious activity, we are punishing them without even knowing if they are guilty or not, and this completely violates their constitutional and human rights. Conclusion Privacy is an absolute necessity in a developed society like ours today. It is a sign of development, an indicator that a government respects its citizens and is willing to grant them their fundamental human rights. Why would we throw this out for security? If we put security first, we are saying that we'd be willing to give up our human rights for a hypothetical threat that may or may not yield an outcome. This is why privacy must come first, otherwise, its illogical, unconstitutional and completely pointless. Let me conclude today by reminding you of something that Benjamin Franklin once famously said: "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
North Korea and South Korea should be unified.

Firstly I am very surprised that pro thought other people from other countries and cultures are not like us. Obviously there are many other people just like pro and/or like me. We are all of the same species, but this does not by any means imply this improbable reunification is a good idea. These are not only two pieces of land with a different name and a different flag, they have very different governments and beliefs. The cost of currency is nothing compared to the consequences of ignorant actions and reunification. It is definitely not in the right conditions for reunification. Separated families are not fun, Pro may have to imagine what it is like but I know from experience. What pro fails to acknowledge or realize is that there is an attempt to reunify them, the problems may cancel the benefits or completely outweigh them. Reunification does not have to happen for families to join up again. If the North Korean and South Korean Government's can make peace and change their policies (especially North Korea) the families would be able to move without the countries having to join up. If North Korea is not willing to let people cross their borders and move in and/or out, what makes you think they will give up most if not all of their power and political beliefs just so the can be "happily reunified"? The economy is one of the main reasons why reunification is so difficult. Their political and economic beliefs differ too different for both parties to agree on one. If it is a peaceful reunification other countries might not enjoy it so much (ex: USA, Japan, and others which dislike the North Korean arms race). The North is a very militarized nation which I doubt spends all their money just for South Korea's military. The North spends its money so they can threaten other countries as well. Again, what I see is pro failing to recognize my points and why theirs are invalid. If anything I think China, Japan, and the rest of the world would be skeptical and be watching cautiously as they see country so fragile and weaken by the terrible economy of the North and the political power struggles of both sides. In conclusion I completely disagree with pro in their statement of a " wait-and-see attitude". I am not waiting and seeing for reunification but rather I completely do not advise it for South Korea. Being prepared does not mean execution of a plan, but rather ready to commit to a plan. You should not put two rivals in the same house until they are prepared.
North Korea and South Korea should be unified.

Several days ago, I watched a movie named "Spy". Before I watched it I expected it to be a very cruel and horrifying movie, but it was completely opposite from what I had expected. The main characters in the movie are spies from North Korea, but in fact they are just normal people just like us, who care about their family and friends. The genre of the movie was comedy, but the story was not so comic. Rather, the movie was a sad story. While we were eating popcorns and having fun at the theatre watching movies about spy, separated families might have been crying with their broken hearts. Some people argue that there is no problem staying as two separate countries, saying that reunification only takes a lot of money and may also lead to a political and social chaos. On the other hand, some people say that it is too early for reunification because we cannot yet afford the reunification cost. Moreover, they say that the language and culture between North and South Korea differ so much and that solving such problems should come first. Of course both opinions have their own sense. However, I strongly believe that North and South Korea should be reunified. First, the problem of separated families is one of the reasons for reunification. Sometimes we find leaflets looking for missing dogs on telephone poles. People even miss animals they had raised only for a short time. Can you imagine how people long for their separated families who shared blood with them? The possibility of the 2nd Korean War and the fear it brings are another problem. If the 2nd Korean War outbreaks, an innumerable number of people will sacrifice because modern weapon are incomparably developed compared to the ones 60 years ago. Another problem is related to the economy. Every year, both countries spend tremendous amount of money for the military. Instead, North and South Korean people could live a comfortable life with the money. Besides the problems I mentioned, there still exists many other reasons why reunification should be acheived as soon as possible. If North Korea and South Korea are reunified, such problems will be solved at once. Not only that, Korea will become a wealthier, more powerful country with resources and technologies of South Korea and underground resources and tourism assets of North Korea. Then, China or Japan will not look down on Korea. However, the happiness does not just come if we just have a wait-and-see attitude. The opportunity always comes to the prepared people.
North Korea and South Korea should be unified.

Hello, I am debating for my first time here and I too like talking about politics. To start this debate I would like to give a very brief and short history on Korea and then I will argue why I believe North Korea and South Korea should not be unified. (1)Korea was its own country (1392-1910) until Japan successfully annexed it. It became a Japanese colony. As World War II started to end, The USSR and USA both took control of Korea. The USSR in the north and USA in the south. The USSR appointed communist leader Kim Il-Sung and the USA appointed anti communist leader Syngman Rhee. They both had two different sections of the country. They both became separate nations in 1948. 1950 North Korea declared war on South Korea. The Korean war lasted from 1950-1953. Ever since then, North Korea and South Korea became very different. The North's government is communist and it is a militaristic state. Their economy is terrible and the have a tyranny government. The South's government is much more of a "democracy" compared to the North. Their economy is much more capitalistic and their people benefit more because of it. If an attempt to reunite them again would almost absolutely end up in war. The North's citizens are very misinformed and the governments are too different and would not want to change. North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. If the two nations were to attempt a unification, it would be extremely difficult to switch too one government. The north definitely has power to do a military coup. There would be conflict ending in both sides having destruction. Families may re-unite but not necessarily in a good way, they may have been "institutionalized" to North Korea's or South Korea's ways.What will happen to the allies of North and South Korea? will they have to start fresh or will they have to compromise on that as well? Now apart from military and government conflicts it would almost devastate both countries and it would turn into a giant war zone where tourism is its least concern. South Korea's economy would be destroyed or at least set back for a while. Not to mention both sides still have harsh feelings for each other. Have you ever thought what the nations want? I don't think they want to be reunited, and if they do they both want it their own standards. The citizens are very different and I can guarantee they might not be separate nations but they are separate people with a little difference in language as well.(2)(3)(4) In summary, I think peaceful reunification with these two countries is impossible and will not be achieved for a while (this makes the idea of tourism a little silly). The governments and economies are too different, and finally I don't think it is their interests to compromise their ways of life because their new citizens are not happy with it. (1)http://asianhistory.about.com... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org...
North Korea and South Korea should be unified.

Hello, I'm debating this topic because I like talking about politics. Korea was once a land and people unified. Since the Korean War, many families and people have suffered and continue to suffer the tragedy of seperation of Korea into two independent nations. Today, I'm going to talk with you about Unification! Here are the positive reasons for Unification of the seperated Korea: 1. Korea would have more land to developed. 2. Families would re-unite. 3. War will not take place with a one-Korea. 4. Koreas military would grow and be strengthened. 5. The Tourism industry would increase multi-fold. 6. They are are same people with same blood. 7. It can protect many hunger's life. 8. Reunification can make people more safety.
Abortion should be legal in all instances

1. Being the status quo doesn't make it wrong either. You need to provide a good reason for changing something. The reason we treat insects and fetuses differently is because insects are insignificant, while fetuses are potential people. That may be a bigoted reason, but that's the reason. 2. It's human by having human DNA, what you mean is "person". This is a red herring, as whether it's a person doesn't change whether it exists. Preventing a pregnancy means that you stop the pregnancy from occurring. That is not the same as ending a pregnancy, no matter what stage of development you do it at. 4. Also a red herring. The mother's opinion doesn't change the scientific definition of a parasite. 5. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". If she willingly had sex, she knew she ran the risk of getting pregnant. Just because dad has given up doesn't mean mom can, and vice-versa. 6. Exactly when fetuses begin to feel pain is still under debate. We know for certain that they can by 26 weeks, but we don't know if they can earlier. You cannot say for certain that they don't feel pain, as we don't know the facts. This isn't an argument from ignorance fallacy, as I'm not claiming that abortion is therefore wrong. The eating meat thing is a red herring. 7. If I was tortured all my life, I'd want the pain to stop. That's not the same as wanting to die. I've actually been tortured, have you? If the adoption system is lousy, fix it. You don't need to perform abortions. By your logic, we should kill newborn babies, young children, homeless people, prisoners, welfare recipients, disabled people, the elderly, and anybody else who is clogging up the system. So what if women go underground? People go underground for anything that's illegal. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws. You're male as well, according to your profile, so our inexperience is equal. It's also irrelevant.