BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kids should have less homework

Even if stress can help kids prepare for the future, it will have a big negative effect on the present. A lot of homework each day or some days may stress the kid out too much. Some kids may finish homework quickly because they learn well, work fast, and don't have a busy schedule. Other kids have a busy schedule, which is limiting their free time. There's kids who work slow and have learning disabilities and problems such as ADHD, so they may take longer on homework. Kids who take a long time on homework and have to finish in an amount of time will stress them out. Some negative effects of stress can include depression, faster heartbeat, headaches, and chronic pain. Kids will not be happy about a lot of homework each day. It's important for children to have plenty of free time. It's important for kids to think about their schedule, tasks, and other stuff. It's also important because kids need to relax. If kids have nothing to do, they can find something they enjoy. If they have the time to relax and do what they enjoy, they'll be in a much better mood to go to school. They won't be mad, sad, or stressed out. It's important that we keep kid's healthy and happy. https://www.healthline.com... https://www.verywellfamily.com...
Kids should have less homework

homework might stress out kids, so it could help them in the future, if they learn to comprehend the stress from homework they can be prepared for the future, and if the child had more free time they would have nothing to spend it on, and if they listened well in school they would be able to complete homework in around half a hour, and like I said in my last argument it will help kids with there learning, also if kids do not have things to pass the time (homework) they could change to many other much worse things
Kids should have less homework

I'm saying kids can have a little homework, but it cannot be a lot. I'd say a max of 20-30 minutes of homework. You do have a good point, but I think most of the work the child does should be done at school. The amount of homework a child is given can add stress to the child. A kid could become very stressed with a lot of homework and worry about finishing it. Stress can disrupt our immune system, homeostasis, heart, and more. It would be better if a child had more free time. Some children have activities to do or an event to attend. The activity or event could end late at night. When the child gets home, he/she will have to do homework. Depending on the amount, the kid might have to work past his bedtime. Not getting enough sleep for the next day is bad for the child as his/her mind will not be functioning as well. It's good to give your mind a break for working. They will want to spend time with their family or friends. Their mind will have a good break and be ready for school. This can make the children happy. Kids may enjoy school more if they don't have so much homework.
Homosexuality is not a choice

All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the "signal" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.
white is not a color

Definitions 1. White meets the first two parts of this definition as it allows for differentiation (that shirt is white) and has a specific hue, brightness etc. The third part comes from a common misconception known as neutral colors. People think that because colors like black and white involve all or no light, they are somehow not colors. Quite the opposite is true. White is just as uch of a color as any other (more on this later). This defintion is just a response to the popular notion that neutral colors are different than 'regular' colors. 2. Again, a popular misconception. Not only is white not free from color, it is all colors combined. (more below) Dictionary definitions are not always reflective of the true nature of things. White is the combination of all colors. This is why rainbows occur. When we seperate the components of white light, the entire spectrum of visible light appears. Every color, with the exception of the primary three, are combinations of other colors. To say that white is not a color is to deny the existence of every other color. Argument 1. Colors do exist. Different light wavelengths produce different perceptions in the eye and subsequently the brain. Simply because the object reflects every wavelength doesn't mean the color of the light doesn't exist. 2. Color is not caused by the object's absorbtion. It is the opposite. If a shirt appears red, it has absorbed every color BUT red and reflected the red wavelength to your eye. So, if we are to say a shirt has a red color in that way, then a white shirt would in fact be EVERY color. The shirt reflects every wavelength and appears as all colors blended together. So, white is ALL colors. Black is the absence of color. White, on the other hand, is made up of every color. People seem to think white is not a color because society sees the color as blank and untarnished, which is where your definitions come from. In actuality, white is perhaps the most qualified to be a color.
white is not a color

To start I will define some key words in this debate 1.color- a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b (1): the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources ; also : a specific combination of hue, saturation, and lightness or brightness (2): a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.white- free from color http://www.merriam-webster.com... first and most obvious is the definitions themselves as in the color definition it states "a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray" meaning that by definition it can not be a color. then in the definition of white it says free from color meaning it is not a color. second because in realty color is just light that has reflected of an object we can see two things: 1. that no colors exist because they are just light 2. white is not a color because it reflects all light that hits it so and because color is caused by particles absorbing light so if no light is absorbed the object has no color
white is not a color

first because the fact that as you say that white is all the colors of light we can see that because the object cause no change in the light it can not be a color because it is simply light. and secondly white has no hue so it can't fit the definition of colors.http://en.wikipedia.org... second you claim that because even though it effects no light it is still a color possible but it you look at the deff. of color the words "phenomenon of light" require that the light must be changed in some in order to be a phenomenon. Phenomenon-an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence. http://www.merriam-webster.com... so if nothing changes we can see that it wouldn't meet the definition of phenomenon because it is just plain light. in your second point your own word work against you. when you say "white light" you talk about light not color. light can not have color because it is not matter looking again at the deff. of color its being able to see objects which are made of matter. we can see by cross applying my second argument that says that because there is no modification of the light it is not a color. so even though the light is white that doesn't mean that it's color is white. to answer your arguments. 1. colors don't exist because they are light. as i said before light can't have a color because the are not matter and because they don't have color it doesn't exist. as while as the fact that all color is neurons in our brains' that change wave of light into what we believe are colors. 2. cross apply my argument that because white doesn't change. And secondly this argument could still prove that white is not a color, because with the red shirt you say that it absorbs all color except red mean that in reality it is all those other colors, and because an object that appears white reflects all light that means that it has absorbed no light so in reality it is black which you said yourself that black is the absence of color proving that white is not a color. Finally you claim that because I got my definitions from society thus it can not be valid. The problem with this is you say that the 6 billion people on earth are wrong. This means I have an insurmountable number of people who support what I am saying you have yourself.
Super Smash Brothers Melee is a better title than Super Smash Brothers Brawl

For this argument, I will be taking the side of the Pro, meaning that I agree with the fact that Melee is sufficiently better than Brawl. To prove this, I, as the Pro side debater, will use terms such as teching and l-cancelling, to say the least. Each one will be followed by a brief explanation of the term, number of characters permitting. Let's begin. I say that Melee is a significantly better game than it's predecessor, Brawl, due in part to the fact that Melee is a faster paced game, and allows the player to have far more control over the way their character acts, thus, making the game more enjoyable as you have to play the game, rather than the game play itself for you. The reason why I state that the game is a faster pace is because of certain techniques like l-cancelling, performed by pushing your shield button while performing an aerial move before you land. This allows you to cut the amount of time in takes your character to stand up and be ready to strike again by half. The mechanic was, unfortunately, cut from Brawl. Yet another reason that Melee is a faster pace is due to the fact that the characters fall faster in Melee than in Brawl. This means that combos are easier, and it's harder to knock opponents off the stage, making fights drag on and take longer. To summarize, I begin this debate by stating that Melee is far superior to Brawl. Over the course of this debate, I plan to cement that.
School should ban junk food

"Most likely kids wont want to eat it." That is a inaccurate assumption. "Healthier food" does not equal "nasty food." An example of junk food would be fried chicken, and an alternative would be grilled chicken. Most kids will still eat the healthier option. In fact, they may prefer it over time. Healthy food and good-tasting food are not mutually exclusive. My argument here also invalidates your argument that schools will be losing money, because kids WILL still eat school lunches. Even if students don't eat school lunches, schools will not lose money. They are reimbursed for offering healthy options.
School should ban junk food

Students can bring healthier foods from home to eat if they do not want to eat the meals offered by schools. So, they do have a choice. What would you say about school meals in general? Schools offer a certain type of meal (e.g. spaghetti and meatballs). If you do not want to eat it for whatever reason, you have every right to pack your own lunch. No one is compelling you to eat spaghetti. Banning junk food means preventing students from bringing a burger and chips from home for lunch. Even if the kids eat junk food when they go home after school, they still have had one fewer unhealthy meal than they would otherwise. How is the school wasting money if they are only offering healthy options? And if students follow this rule of not bringing in junk food to school, food will not be wasted.
American Isolation

Since I am Pro in this debate I am arguing in favor of American Isolation and my opponent is against it. My opponent has argued for my side instead though so this debate is basically over already. I will obviously use his arguments to aid my position. The different cultures argument, economic aspect, and military spending all support my position. I will add that isolationism was the intent of American foreign policy at the founding of our nation. George Washington said "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."(http://www.pbs.org...)It seems that both sides are in agreement and Pro isolationism.
American Isolation

My argument is that America should choose not to intervene in global politics and that by doing so hurts itself. This is my first debate so if I am doing something wrong please tell me. Point 1 Different Cultures It is merely impossible for the average American politician to put themselves in the shoes of a Iraqi or Iranian. They have beliefs and desires that we cannot understand because we grew up in a Western Civilization. Forcing democracy and our culture onto people we share nothing in common with hardly ever works and in alot of cases ends in disaster. If you want a good example, there is a book called Massacre at El Mozote that chronicles Americas role in the El Salvador (wikipedia page for those who do not know what I'm talking about is http://en.wikipedia.org...). A modern day example would be Libya (http://www.theblaze.com...), where America supported rebels that turned up being just as violent and unreasonable as the dictator Gaddafi. Point 2 Economics The fact of the matter is that now and days, multi-national corporations hold huge amounts of weight when it comes to the politics of America. "To big to fail" is a term constantly tossed around by politicians while they have no allegiances to the American people. This means that American industries are moving overseas because companies want the cheaper labor and these politicians are not stopping them. The American people do not trust banks, as shown by a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com...) and the government is ignoring the wishes of the people by continuing to pander to them. Point 3 Military Spending My family has a ton of history in the military, my dad and granddad were in the Air Force and my uncle was in the Marines, and let me start this argument by saying I am all for veterans rights because they are the reason we in America live very comfortable lives. However, the military needs to be shrunk and we should stop being the worlds police force. 20% of our budget goes to defense while veterans get 7%, education gets 2% and science gets 2% as well ( http://www.washingtonpost.com...). I'll end my opening with the wise words of president Eisenhower and pay careful attention to 4:50:
American Isolation

I completely agree with your definition of debate. It is you who is refusing to argue the side you chose in the debate setup. The chosen topic is also the resolution. Your Pro/Con position in relation to the resolution is what dictates what side you should be arguing to according to the rules. You cannot ignore the Pro/Con setup since it is such an integral part of Debate.org. It is completely up to you whether you argue for or against your own position, but it would be wisest to argue for your position. Your position contradicts the setup and rules of Debate.org and is untenable.
American Isolation

The resolution of this debate is "American Isolation". When you choose Pro or Con that is the side you take in relation to the resolution. For example: If I am Pro in a gun control debate, I am arguing in favor of gun control. If you were con, then you would be arguing against gun control. I understand this is your first debate so for a greater understanding of the rules I recommend you read these to introduction to DDO links: (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.debate.org...) Both contain a lot of helpful information. As for your argument, I can agree with you because it supports my position in this debate. I understand it makes this less of a debate, but I welcome you to present your counterarguments against American Isolationism. Make sure to address all the points you made in round 1 though.
The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

Sorry to disappoint those who would hope for me to spend my last round of the debate refuting my opponent's last set of points, but I trust that I have presented a good enough case. I have faith that the majority viewing this debate will make an informed vote. To close, I would like to remind the Christians who are watching this debate that even though the resurrection clearly does not meet the criteria of historicity, that does not mean that the resurrection did not happen. All it means is that there is not enough evidence to consider such an event a fact. It can't be taught as such in school text books to children. Because of the remarkableness inherent to the event being described, it would be foolish to say that we know it happened with an accurate degree of certainty. It should be up to the individual whether or not they want to believe these extraordinary claims. The resurrection lies in the realm of faith, not the science of history. Even though I strongly disagree with my opponent, I'd like to thank him for being willing to debate me, despite his skepticism that I would be able to pose a challenge. This was a fun first debate for me. I'd also like to thank him for making me have to look up and re-look up things. Peace and love, thank you all.
purple guy is innocent

But the only evidence we see is those mini games we never see him killing them plus he was arrested but no one had any proof becuase he didn't do it. We just hear him get blamed for it. When we give cake to the children it is just that giving cake to dead children to help them. The only "murder" we saw in fnaf 4 was just him putting on the mask for a worker. The five kids could have been killed by literally any one. Who says it was one person? The only evidence against him isn't a phone conversation that was pre recorded and one that framed him.
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

Unlike cars, of which the main purpose is to get you places, and medical marijuana of which the main purpose is to help you get better, weed has no purpose except to get people high, and to get the sellers money.Weed has the same inherent purpose as heroin.I once again do believe in the banning of cigarettes I just believe it is a different issue due to it's difficulty and place in society.To summarize my argument, The negatives of weed and dangers far outweigh any potential benefits, and if we legalize weed, it will be hard to reverse. Medical cannabis should be treated as we treat medical opioids.The government should also put more emphasis on rehabilitation programs and we should work as a country to a clean America.Thank you for the good argument, and I look forward to any potential votes,
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

As far as the risks go, which is pretty much the only thing that stops you from thinking recreational marijuana should be legalized, they shouldn't matter, since there is a risk to everything. For example, the risk to driving a car is that you could possibly get in a wreck and either injure yourself or even die. 1.3 million people die in car crashes a year. Does this mean we should ban driving? Of course not! Is addiction a problem with recreational marijuana? Well, did you know medicinal marijuana can also be addictive? Does this mean we should reject the legalization of medicinal marijuana? Of course not! Maybe you're right; maybe we shouldn't ban the smoking of cigarettes. But it still makes no sense to me as to why we shouldn't legalize the smoking of weed. http://www.narconon.org... To summarize my argument, legalizing recreational marijuana does have risks, but it also has benefits. Just because something has risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. And majority of America wants it to be legalized! Therefore, I see no reason why recreational marijuana shouldn't be legalized, and my opinion is the same as it was before this debate. http://thehill.com... This has been a good debate, Con, and I really enjoyed it. I"m not the best at debating, but I feel you have gave me a challenge that has improved my debating skills, so thank you. Good luck in the voting period!
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

There are no significant health benefits to cannabis, unless it is used specifically for health reasons.It should only be given out on a prescription. Even then, I do not see a good reason for it to be given in the form of smoke, but rather edibles. Smoke of any kind is horrible, not just for the persons own health but for everyone around them.Any health benefits that smoking weed without a prescription might have are easily out weighed. They cause lung disease, chronic bronchitis, some cancers, and pregnancy complications. Just as with tobacco this isn't just limited to those who smoke it, second hand smoke means they are killing people around them as well.Sadly it is hard to know the full extent of damage it can cause. This is because it hasn't been legal very long, so study opportunities are limited. It shouldn't be legalized just so we can be guinea pigs.It can also be outright dangerous for those with compromised immune systems.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...That, combined with the fact that as you saw in my first argument, Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, shows this is far more dangorus then any health benifets you may find.Don't play russian roulette with drugs, most people don't know what genetics they may have effecting addiction and mental illness. Weed has been common among certain areas, like the homeless, in people who use drugs, and some teenage populations but isn't even close to as ingrained in society as tobacco or alcohol. Banning both tobacco and alcohol is still to the benefit of socity, but requires much more tact.For those trying to quit weed, it may be much harder for them if it is legal and out in the open. I can attest to that with my ex drug addict sister, who moved across the country to get away from it and the people she did drugs with.Also with a freind of her's that tells me she thinks she would of died by now had she not become pregnant with her daughter, promting her to get off drugs. While she was pregnant she craved tabacco so much that she would stop to smell drying tar on the road.https://www.recovery.org...Allowing weed into society also is quite unfair to the autistic population and other populations that may be in some way vulnerable to smoke.