BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple.

sonofzapp, You claim that "Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple." but give no evidence to back this claim up but how tasteless his music is, which has nothing to do with the argument. As we all know, when you said "Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple." You said with the expressionology that illustrated a picture in one's head of you going, "Soulja Boy sucks!" then sticking your tongue out in disgust for a pause, and then saying, "Plain and simple", which, as we all know, is the midwestern slang term for the oh so delectable Plain and Simple Sourdough Bread, as advertised on allrecipes.com in the link below: http://allrecipes.com... Now, your claim substatiateseses that Soulja Boy (born DeAndre Ramone Way) takes part in the actions of: 1: Grasping a hold of the freshly baked bread 2: Moving the bread from the oven to his lips 3: Opening his lips 4: Licking them 5: Thinking about licking them again 6: Licking them again 7: Making a juicy smacking noise 8: Applying cherry chapstick to them to ensure proper lip drying 9: Wiping off the chapstick because he realized that it would make the bread taste bad 10: Throwing out the kleenex he used to wipe it off 11: Reaching back into the trash to pick up the kleenex and move it to the recycling bin 12: Looking for the recycling bin 13: Hollering for his mama to ask about the whereabouts of the recycling bin 14: Hearing his mama say "I don't know, bitch!" 15: Feeling his blood pressure rise 16: Deciding to screw eco-friendly values and go back to what he was doing 17: Picks up bread again 18: Moves it to his lips 19: Opens lips 20: And mouth 21: Inserts loaf of bread into mouth 22: Closes lips 23: Closes mouth 24: Clamps down teeth 25: Using the previous three and his tongue, makes sucking motion on bread. 26: Hums "Sweet Caroline" This 26-step process is the act commonly known as "Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple." Which you chose to not back up. I will now make my case. Soulja Boy does NOT suck Plain and Simple. I must admit he has not personally admitted this to me, but I do have a reliable source: http://uncyclopedia.org... Your turn.
should homework be banned/reduced

The amount that we eat doesn't keep on increasing, or else an 80-year old would be eating a lot. The teachers may have been children in their childhood, but 20 years is a long time for academic patterns to change. Teachers may not realize that we are getting too much work, for not all teachers are connected, hence the tiny assignments from many subjects adds up to a nearly impossible challenge. As for homework's importance, what I mean to say is that when there were suppose 5 assignments and my friend did 3, 2 teachers would still scold him, while there is not much praise for doing homework. The person may just give up and realize the futility of working all the time. As you say, Manjul Bhargava is a math genius, and is a good tabla player. But I ask why only he has succeeded? You call for effective time management, but then we have so less time. I reach home at 4:30 pm, and our travel is nearly 1 hour. Also, I am sure even such a genius hasn't won the battle for sleep. I used to sleep at 9, but now I have to extend it to 10 due to extra homework. This would reduce my ability to stay focus, no matter if I wash my face twice. Another reason why homework should be banned is lack of entertainment. More than often, homework involves usage of the mind. While it works well for a while, the continuous work calls for a break.But when we have weekend homework and weekday homework how shall I go watch my favorite movie? Though time management is useful for weekends, weekdays call for all work and no play. And we can't be into work all the time. I often forget about concepts in the 1st lesson when the 10th lesson starts, and once at home I forget everything. True, homework would reinforce my concept, but after sleeping I forget again. Although not everyone has a bad memory as mine, even conceptual learning has to be remembered. Severity of homework is determined by our mind, but most people lack the optimism to take it as a challenge, for who gives challenges everyday? Our schools made for us or we made for schools? We must think outside the horizons of learning, for geniuses like Issac Newton and Einstein did bad at school. You can look at this link to see more famous people who did bad at school but great in life. http://www.onlinecollege.org...
should homework be banned/reduced

It is important to define 'over-exercising' here. Let me draw an analogy to homework and eating. As we keep growing older, the amount we eat keeps increasing. If we were to compare the quantities we ate in our primary classes to the amount we are eating now, we would define ourselves as over-eating. It was never that throughout our primary classes, we weren't given any homework. Its just that since our brain has developed that much, we can do that much more work. We have just never found an interest in homework as much as eating, that we think we are 'over-exercising' right now. Our teachers, after all, have been in our shoes in their childhood, and know how much homework is too much, and hence would never give us 'excessive' homework. To the argument regarding homework being treated as not important. True, when one has a substantial amount of homework, then missing one accidentally does tend to happen. But then not doing work of any type is highly unlikely when teachers regularly check for homework. The consequences from teachers may not seem severe, but the poor performance in examinations is probably enough. Our life may be divided into a number of phases, each with a purpose. Our primary schooling years may be for getting started on a sport or fine art, but our secondary years are definitely to master our academics. If one would rather chill out with friends at this time, then they are wasting precious study hours, for chilling with friends can be done at any time. It is important to note that homework is not of just one type. As you mention yourself, SOME work involves memorisation. The rest is either practice or conceptual in nature, as I have already mentioned. So the actual 'learning' is in no way diminished. To fine arts and sports, it is very much possible to find time to complete both homework and practice, and this calls for effective time management. Manjul Bhargava, who was awarded the fields medal ( the highest honour in mathematics ) says that apart from his interest in mathematics which he gained from rigorous practice, he is also an accomplished Tabla player and has accompanied prominent artists like Zakir Hussain. So if he, a human just like us can accomplish it, then all of us can. I personally believe that severity of homework is purely determined by our mind. If we take homework in the right spirit, then no homework can over work us.
should homework be banned/reduced

You have categorized the brain as a machine, and it needs constant practice or else it will rust. But the same way, over-exercise ruins the body, and I think the same apply to the mind as well. Although work is needed, as much as we hate to believe, too much work would lead to breakdown under pressure. Moreover, I have saw my friends who weren't able to complete homework seemed to start believing homework wasn't important, and the unfortunate miss of 1 subject made them think the consequences aren't severe, and now they don't do any work of any type. Also, some work often requires memorization. While developing memory is a good skill, it can make thinking go stagnant, and when an actual problem comes, the student has lost the thinking ability required. It does reinforce concepts, but it makes actual learning go away. Another point is the progress in arts and sports. The time consumed by homework makes arts and sports practice unfeasible, for these subjects are much more fun than others, and usually don't give much work. As time passes, even my sport skills have significantly reduced in trade for time for studying. If homework was banned or reduced, children would start liking school more, for they don't need it to be their life. Even at home we study, even in class we study, I wonder have we been made for studying day and night? If too much homework wasn't given that day, my friend would have been much more diligent than he is now for even if not doing homework has consequences, they aren't TOO severe, and we might as well spend that evening chilling with friends rather than doing work.
should homework be banned/reduced

As time consuming as excessive homework may seem, it has a number of advantages. Our brain is like any other muscle in the body, it requires constant and tiring practice to grow and develop. Therefore, it is only when we pressurise our brain that actual development will occur. If we forever do only how much we find convenient, our brain growth will stagnate. The amount of homework being given in schools teaches the students the importance of time management and deadlines, prepares them to undertake pressure in their lives, and enables them to become responsible, self-reliant and punctual. Homework given in every subject helps the student evaluate their level of understanding of what was taught at school and know how much harder they are expected to work. Solving a large number of problems of the same and of different kinds sharpens the students brain and prepares them for all possible problems. Homework also helps the student remember concepts in a clearer manner by reinforcing them via direct concept and application based questions. It helps the student summarise all that happened that day at school and reiterate important facts and points.
should homework be banned/reduced

I think homework should be banned or reduced to certain parameters in schools. While homework does increase knowledge, school takes about 8 hours of the day's time away, plus the time our transport takes. Homework has always won in the war against sleep, lowering productivity of children and lesser chances of understanding what is being taught. Homework is often given as small assignments from all subjects, adding up to a gigantic pile. Deep sleepers may even miss school due to sleeping late. There should be a certain limit how much homework can be given in a day.
Is anger good

lol funny but I still disagree with you. I feel like anger is a good because it tells you something is wrong. We get mad when people try to take advantage of us, getting angry serves as an indication something is wrong. If someone did something you didn"t like as trying to take advantage over you and you get angry but you deal with the situation in the right way, then getting angry did the job for you. You don"t necessary have to go crazy with emotions, as Aristotle states to be good tempered is a mean with respect to anger. Tends to be unperturbed and not be led by passion and knows how to control anger. We have to understand anger and you develop virtue by learning it as a skill this is why experience is important, you can's compare it with a kid they have no understanding of anger. To analyze anger you must discover what state of mind there in, who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and on what grounds they get angry with them.
Is anger good

you are wrong my friend, Virtue itself does not need any assistants. Virtue is enough for itself. When you stated that anger lets us reason then it is the case that it is no longer anger the emotion, but rather reason. When it comes to actions and experiences, it is not always the case that we only act in a certain manner because it will benefit us in one way or another. It is because we are weak that we believe that anger is a necessary condition for us to be able to act in a certain way or for that matter, not to act in a certain way. If we consider how anger plays a role in a child, you will be able to understand better the basis for my reasoning. Suppose a child's toy is taken away, he or she will respond with a temper tantrum along with kicking, wailing and tons of anger. Do you look upon this child as experienced? or perhaps only being able to accomplish his goal of regaining the toy because he is angry? I believe not. On the contrary, we see a child a s weak individual who does not know how to properly re direct his emotion and let go of anger. Accepting the ideas that anger is a virtue is accepting false emotions. Seneca backs this up by comparing anger to alcohol. At times, alcohol provides us with the "false" courage to go through with an action which we normally wouldn't have because we would be in our proper state of mind. This is the same idea with anger. Anger at times tricks us into believing that we are more courageous than we really are and because of the impulse and the rush that we get once we feel anger, we are inclined to act in different ways. We should also take into consideration the fact that when you are angry you fail to see anything other than what you have already made up in your mind to be the correct approach, even if this approach is not the correct one. In essence, you must also take into account the stoics idea about not stressing ourselves over things which we have no control over. We are quick to anger because we feel that a certain outcome should have occurred, and if something does not go as we expected than we will be angry. But there is no need for us to feel contempt towards any one else s actions except our own. As mentioned above, anger should be seen as the enemy, once we allow it to enter our minds, there is now ay to stop it and we will no longer be in control, but instead anger will possess us. Following these premises, please do not feel angered when I beat you in this debate. !!!
Is anger good

I can see where you coming from but this is why virtue plays an important role to guiding such emotions. There are two kinds of virtue; intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue requires experience and time, while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit. This is important because if you don't experience anger then you wont ever to able to control it. and to get the right understanding we acquire it through proper habits and ability to see what reasons best supports our actions. When we get mad we see why we got mad which allows us to reason for next time it happens. Virtue is having the appropriate attitude toward pain and pleasure which guides us with anger.
Is anger good

Using the basis that you stated about anger protecting us. I think that you are being blinded by thinking that anger actually does us any good. On the contrary, anger is usually followed by impulses and rushed decisions. Therefore, we may jump to a certain action simply because we have not taken the time to think logically and fair about a certain situation. By accepting this impulse you are rejecting reasoning. Reasoning is what guides us into assessing the likelihood of pleasure and or pain. Once we decide to let anger take over us, then we are no longer in control and it is very difficult to revert back to a calm state. Thus, we should avert anger all together.
Do we live in a democracy when gerrymandering is going on

Not sure if first round is acceptance only or not but ill just throw a few things out there 1) Gerrymandering only affects one part of the actual government. Gerrymandering is used entirely on the design of districts that elect people to the House of Representatives, these districts though have absolutely NO impact on Senate elections and Presidential elections, which are positions that hold far greater power and influence then the House of Representatives. If Gerrymandering hevaily influenced Senate and Presidential voting, then you may be able to argue that the country isnt a democracy, but because gerrymandering has no impact on Senate and Presidential voting, you can still call the US a fair democracy. 2) Gerrymandering only slightly influences the size of ones vote. Gerrymandering of course manipulates potential votes to give one party a slight edge over the other party when the results ultimately come in, but Gerrymandering only slightly twists the power that people's votes hold. What i mean is that Gerrymandering does not silence a vote or take away someone's right to vote, and people still maintain their right and ability to cast a vote for the party/candidates they wish to elect. If Gerrymandering completely ignored votes or deleted them, then that could be argued as unfair democratic elections, but thats not what Gerrymandering does. Gerrymandering only twists SOME votes in SOME potential swing areas to give a party a SLIGHT edge over the other in ONE of the many branches of government. Yes Gerrymandering can twist votes, but it only does so slightly, in a manner that is acceptable to still rate elections as fair and free. Ill just start with those, over to you con.
Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, or Children

To begin, I would like to define exactly how sexual attraction between similar species works, and how homosexuality differs from it. The sole purpose of attraction is the want to procreate, and thus pass on our genes and continue our species. This is basic biology. The family unit within the human species serves mainly to ensure the survival of the offspring until adulthood, when they are then able to fend for themselves and themselves procreate. So how does homosexuality differ from this? Easy. To begin with, two males are unable to procreate together. This defeats the basic biological purpose of sexual attraction. To be frank, it's unnatural. Now my opponent may argue that if it's unnatural, why are people born as homosexuals? Research certainly shows that people are born "gay", and that no amount of therapy or counseling is able to change their sexual orientation, no matter how much of a stigma it is in today's society or how difficult their sexual orientation makes their personal lives. And to be honest, I don't know why some people are born attracted to the opposite gender. But here's the problem with that argument: the same argument can be applied to almost anything. Like homosexuals, pedophiles are "born" attracted to children. It is not a fact that they can change, and is truly a physiological deviation which deviates from the social norm. Neither men, children, animals, corpses, etc, etc are able to conceive a child, making them unnatural. However, none of them are choices the people have made themselves. So why should homosexuality be legalized while these other sexual deviations remain illegal? Now my opponent may believe that this is all conjecture, and that these are all separate issues, however, this is not the case. If you ask anyone who the "father" of the modern Gay Rights Movement is, most would say Harry Hay. But two seconds of research into his personal life shows that among the groups he supported was NAMBLA, or the National American Man/Boy Love Association, a group which advocates for rights of pedophiles and the legalization of marriage between a man and a child. This group has also been a part of numerous LGBT parades, including the "Spirit of the Stonewall" march in 1994. Is Harry Hay an isolate incident, an outlier, perhaps? I argue that it is wrong to assume that the man who propelled the Gay Rights Movement to where it is today was alone in his beliefs. Likewise, there are many other examples of Gay Rights and Pedophilia Rights groups advocating together. With this I present to you my argument that gay rights and the other sexual deviations are one in the same, and it would be both illogical and unfair to only legalize one when the same argument could be made for all sexual deviations. Not only this, but the fact that Pedophile Advocacy groups have been intertwined with the Gay Rights Movement since its inception shows that there really is no way to separate the two, and by legalizing one, it is only a matter of time until the other is legalized.
Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, or Children

My opponent and I will be arguing one of the historic anti-gay marriage debates. The statement is that the allowance of gay marriage can serve as a "gateway" for the allowance of other types of relationships which go against the societal "norm", including animals, children, siblings, corpses, etc, etc. "Marriage" in this debate is defined as a legal and binding relationship recognized by United States government. No semantics arguments.
Tourney Round 2, Debate No. 12: Art and/or Music are Important in Grade School

Quite simply, art and music are integral parts to a well-rounded education system. Since our public schools seek to provide just this, art and music are essential to give students a preparation for any career they might choose. Art in itself is a career, and artistic skills are used in many others, such as drafting and architecture. Music is also a career in itself. It is unconscionable that music or art should be removed from our school system. Removing them would leave a gaping hole for students who wish to enter those fields, and probably cause a drop in then number of artists or musicians. Some people have argued that art and music are fringe skills, and that they shouldn't be taught because (A) most students won't be going into art or music fields, (B) art and music are unnecessary and should be extracurricular anyway, and (C) they are not "vital" skills like 'readin', writin', and 'rithmetic.' Although it is true that most students will not choose art or music as a career, they should still be offered in public schools. Why? First of all, because to not do so would result, as I said before, in a lack of art- and music-trained individuals. Second, because art and musical skills are useful in other fields; third because they encourage right-brain development. Development of the brain in a child should dwell equally on the right and left sides of the brain. Although teaching right-brained ideas is not always compatible with the institutionalized nature of the school system, art and music classes are ways we can do this. (http://www.funderstanding.com...) Most people would agree that art and music are secondary skills to mathematics, reading, writing, languages, social studies, and history. This may be the case but it is still impossible to have a well-rounded education without the arts or music. Also, most careers today need writing and reading more than, say, algebra. Does that mean we should drop algebra to free up more funds for teaching writing? Or course not! Neither should we drop music and the arts.
Being constitutional is not as important as doing something that develops us better as human beings

My apologies for missing the second round. My laptop is getting fixed and using your phone for this takes time I just didn't have this week. As I missed my opportunity for a rebuttal, I will simply make a conclusion statement. The U.S. constitution; while inconvenient for certain politicians (cough* Obama), is our single greatest shield against tyranny and our stalwart protector of liberty. The constitution is never outdated as it provides its own mechanism to change with the current era. Thus, the highest priority of our government should be to operate within the confines of the constitution.