BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism

Hey, thanks for taking the time to let your views be known and allowing others to comment on them.Attributing racism purely to a few bad situations a person might encounter is a gross oversimplification of the issues between races. When you start to break down large scale demographic issues you start to see the problems underlying most of the problems people have with people of African descent.First you have Africans when they represent a minority in a population. I'll be referring mostly to blacks in the US since I am more familiar with my home country. Here blacks commit roughly the same amount of violent crime as whites across all financial demographics. They also make terrible parents. 72% of Black Mothers are unmarried when they give birth, and the majority of them are on Medicaid at the time which comes at the cost of everyone else. And while the rate of child abuse is fairly consistent when adjusted for population, Black child abuse has a disproportionately high fatality rate.Then you have the differences in genetics. Whites and Asians tend to be more intelligent than Hispanics and blacks, while the inverse tends to be true for physical strength. While this fact is not inherently racist, it leads to much animosity when these groups are forced together.Then you factor in what happens once they gain a majority control in a country. You may or may not be surprised to find out that blacks tend to be far more racist toward whites than any white controlled nation towards blacks. This is consistent throughout all of sub-Saharan Africa, be it Zimbabwe where they drove away all the white farmers shortly before they began suffering a food shortage or in South Africa where two of the major political parties stances are 'take white owned land without compensation' and 'Genocide all whites'.So you have a violent, low intelligence, group of people who actively try to ruin the lives of any minority in a country their race controls. It's not hard to see why many would look down on such people and would rather be around people of their own race.I'd like to thank you again for giving me this opportunity and look forward to your rebuttal. Black Racism:https://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://dailycaller.com...Black Crime:https://ucr.fbi.gov...Racial Differences in IQ:https://www.news-medical.net...Black Motherhood:https://www.cdc.gov... https://www.cdc.gov... https://archive.acf.hhs.gov...
The Bible doesn't teach the concept of "the right one "

While the Bible says that God made Eve from the rib of Adam (Gen. 2:21), earlier in v. 18, he says "I will make a helpmeet for him", not THE helpmeet. There are several laws which allow for remarriage: Deuteronomy 22:13-29 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 If marriage was eternal on earth, why would remarriage be permitted? The books of the Proverbs are not a collection of sayings carrying an absoluteness as any other book of the Bible. The Proverbs require divine wisdom to use them in it's proper context. According to Holman's dictionary: "Proverbs are designed to make one wise, but they require wisdom to be used correctly. Proverbs are true, but their truth is realized only when they are fitly applied in the right situation. Job's friends misapplied proverbs about the wicked to righteous Job. Many things have more than one side to them, and the wise person will know which is which.." (1) Thus when people quote Proverbs 31, wisdom must be used in discerning what kind of wife would benefit you. Thus God wanted to give us principles to be able to wisely choose the right kind of man or wife fit for us. Sources: 1. http://www.studylight.org...
Prostitution should be legalized

On to Contention 1: It is important to note that today's illegal prostitution rings have no laws regulating the protection of prostitutes. The PTSD, and STD's can be avoided by having legitimate brothels that protect the women. No beatings or such could take place in a protected environment, reducing significantly the chances of mental disorders. By legalizing Prostitution you are not bringing along the crime, corruption, or trafficking because there are know legitimate institutions. Employers hire their employees just like any other business and have interest in ensuring their continued health and productivity. Contention 2: This contention does not really prove anything. The same lazy student could simply try a life of crime or other "easy" jobs. Those who work hard and wish to succeed are always going to do better over over the pot-smoking lazy student who drops out. The drop-out may also turn to prostitution anyway- by legalizing it you are now better protecting that drop-out. Contention 3: This contention merely assumes that the government would be the owner of the brothels. If the brothels were privately-owned the business owner would pay for the monthly check-ups as part of their operating costs and import that in the price of their product. In that way the spread of STD's is still countered without a lot of extra cost. I contend that: Contention I: That prostitution is good for the economy. Prostitution is good for the economy for several reasons. First, it takes a previously illegal industry and legalizes it, opening the way for tax revenue which will help the government. It would provide low-skill people with a chance to work, and it will offer new business opportunity's for business owners. Contention II: Legalizing the Prostitution increases the Public Health. The prevalence among STD's in prostitutes today is a direct result of an illegal industry with no standards. Assuming the legalization of Prostitution one could argue that is would be in the Brothel's best interest to have their employees be healthy, both to offer a better product and ensure continue productivity. A client is very likely to pay more for a clean prostitute over one that is carrying an STD. In this respect the public health would be increased as STD's among this profession would be less common. Contention III: That the legalization of Prostitution cuts down on crime. Legalizing Prostitution cuts down on crime in several ways. Firstly prostitution would itself no longer be a crime, and prostitutes or their clients could no longer be arrested. Secondly, the secondary crime that is common with proposition such as drugs, abuse and the like would be dramatically decreased with legalization.
should kids wear uniforms

Children wearing school uniforms is far from 'nonsence'. It could save a child's life. Imagine a little kindergartner, wandering willy-nilly out of their school. Without their school uniform, nobody would know that they were missing from the school. And think how much grief that would bring to their parents. Besides, if representing the school somewhere, pupils can't just wear Nikes and a hoodie. They should wear their school uniform because they want people thinking 'Wow, how polite these people are. I think I should send MY children to this school.' School uniforms are a necessity.
In the battle to overcome terrorism, Islam is not the enemy, ignorance is.

I am sick of reading debate topics claiming that islam is a "cult" or it is the religion of evil. It angers me that the country I love is full of such blind and ignorant people. When will America wake up and realize that this islam/terrorist problem was created by the "we are America, we know best" view. A quote from an Iraqi refugee, "We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism." can best sum up my stance. There are two reasons I can think of for people making these absurd statements about Islam, either they are uneducated (i pray), or they are intelligent thoughtful people who somehow manage to let fear blind them into arrogance. With this Islam is evil mentality, we will never win the war on terrorism. 9/11 is our fault, and it is about time we base our foreign policies on that notion. For those of you who were wondering, I am not muslim.
Bach vs Handel

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) is one of the great composers in Western musical history. He was born in Eisenach, Germany, into a family of working musicians. In 1695, when he was just nine years old, his parents died and he was sent to live with his brother, Johann Christoph, an organist. Whilst living with his brother he learnt the keyboard and studied composition on his own. He worked as an organist, then as a court composer at C"then (now K"then) and then as musical director at St Thomas's church in Leipzig, producing many hundreds of choral and instrumental works (and hundreds of thousands of pages of handwritten parts). Bach is known to be one of the worlds most greatest composers of all time but then there is George Fredric Handel. Baroque composer George Handel was born February 23, 1685, in Halle, Germany. In 1704 Handel made his debut as an opera composer with Almira. He produced several operas with the Royal Academy of Music before forming the New Royal Academy of Music in 1727. When Italian operas fell out of fashion, he started composing oratorios, including Messiah. I want you to decide whoever is better the debate will about what the composers have done, how they have changed music ever since, and how there music has impacted us.
Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

Before we continue, Let's do something that really should be done at the start of every debate-- agree to terms. We should agree to what is meant by the term "God". So, Since the you initiated the debate, Define "God" in your terms-- what does the term "God" mean to you? Please note, I'm not asking you to "prove" God doesn't exist, I'm simply asking you what is your idea of God? Do you understand why this needs to be done? As an analogy, If you and i are going to debate whether or not a particular object is an Elephant, Then we need to at least have an understanding, If not agreement, As to what each side considers to be an "Elephant". If I believe an "elephant" is an object that has no legs, No ears, And slithers around on the ground, Then no matter how thorough you describe the object you see in front of you (the object you believe to be an elephant), I will still not see it. You can "prove" the object is an "Elephant" in your terms, But if i have a different understanding of what an "elephant" is, I will still be obstinate and say "I don't agree! " I sort of equate it to the idea of "love". Sometimes my teenage son sees "love" this way: "If you 'love" me you will let me do whatever I want! ". Of course, He doesn't accept my definition of love when I say "It is precisely because I love you that I will not let you do whatever you want. " We are at odds because our idea of "love" differs. Likewise, With any discussion about God. If we don't agree, Or at least understand what each thinks it means to be "God", Then we neither one will "convince" the other side. If you don't accept my terms of God, Then any attempts on my part will be futile. Likewise, If I don't accept your idea of God, Then any argument on your part will be futile. I'm not trying to prove God through dreams. My argument relative to dreams is this: - "Dreams" are an indication that non-material (non-physical) things exist. I think they exist. If I were to ask a number of people, My guess is the majority of them would say non-physical entities (Dreams, Ideas, Concepts) exist. Why? Because they, Like me, Experience them. Does this PROVE they exist, Not necessarily. All of us could be wrong. But again, Science doesn't necessarily anything 100% without a doubt-- it simply gives you strong evidence of something. Now, Does the fact that dreams exist "prove" God exists? Absolutely not. I never said they do. All I'm saying is that non-physical, Non-material things exist. So, Some questions for you: 1. Do you believe "Dreams" are non-physical, Non-material entities? 2. Do you believe that "Dreams" exist? 3. Do you believe that "non-physical", "non-material" entities are exist?
Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

"The debate is not about proving God. " Oh absolutely it is. Didn"t you pay attention to the rules in which was the closing question for the article that came from The Atheist Republic "Why do you think god was invented? " "We can certainly go there. " So the BOP isd on you. Go right ahead and prove YOUR god. "Say something, Let's call it an "entity"" No call it "god", Or actually "jealous as that"s what YOUR god names himself in your bible in which your god would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. "Created the universe. " Didn"t happen according to your bible. "This entity would have to be "outside" the universe, Right? " Not necessarily. "Not "of the universe". " Depends on your interpretation. Let"s see you bring in some verses to show which is which. "The tools we use to "prove" things in this universe, Then, Could not be used to "prove" something outside the universe. " Um no. You say and so does everybody else "I don"t know. " And nobody does know as wow are there so many theories as to what is and what isn"t that there could be and what couldn"t be if there is something that is or isn"t outside of this universe or not. "So to have an expectation that "science" can "prove God exists"" doesn"t exist. As stated there"s no tests that have been done, No demonstrations that have been done, Nop declarations that have been done. You have no ideas what your god is. What IS it? That"s not one shred of evidence your god exists. Go ahead and describe what your god is. Yeah, You can"t do it. Nobody can. "One can USE science to "Point" in the direction of God. " WRONG! As just proved. "I don't need to be a dream expert to be able to say I can distinguish dreams from reality, " Well then you don"t know what dreaming is. And did you make a point? Now you are getting off track here. If you are trying to prove god through dreams, You are way off. Spirits? "What do you mean by "concrete" evidence-- do you mean physical evidence? " Tangible evidence and not gullibility. You are so right that you do not have physical evidence. "I would say you are right-- I do not have physical evidence that something non-physical (spirits) exist. It's not logical to expect a non-physical entity like a spirit or a dream to leave behind physical evidence. " Oh I see, So you believe in nonphysical entities. Now its up to you to prove that they exist. So I"m not going to read or subjugate myself to any more of your panhandling until you prove that they do exist. And if you can"t, Then "Why do you think god was invented? "
Homework

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I will present my remaining argument. In the comments, someone had written that students are "not delicate little pixies" ; I agree with this statement but the whole purpose of this topic was to prove what would happen IF middleschoolers had a large amount of homework. Keep in mind that this is not what currently exists. According to researchers from Stanford University, a sample of highschool students in upper class communities did 3.1 hours of homework per night and experiences more stress, physical health problems, and a lack of balance in their lives. Although the students know how to deal with competition, they struggle with taking care of an important part of themselves: their well-being. This can also be related to middle school students, and have a significant impact since they are just starting to grow up. While I do agree that being introduced to loads of homework in middle school will prepare students for the loads in Highschool and University, keep in mind that students in high school and university usually have later curfews than middle school students and thus have more time to do their homework, coming from personal experience. http://www.healthline.com... http://news.stanford.edu...
Homework

"First off this decision has nothing to do with extra curricular activities, but to wrap it up there are several activities you can do in your free time, ON THE WEEKENDS!" Yes it does. I was simply providing a reason on the consequences of having a large load of homework; since it proves my argument, it does have to do with the debate. As far as most schools are concerned, extracurricular activities are done after school on a school day, not on the weekend. Even if there were activities done on the weekend, with a large homework load, students would not even have time to do these activities anyway. "Being pressured in middle school will prepare you for the load in high school, college, and will be a great benefit to prep for tests such as, NWEA, NYS tests math and ELA, and many others." My opponent has not given any proof regarding the fact that they will be a good "prep" for these tests. How exactly is doing your homework have any correlation on performing well on the test? I have already proven that middle schoolers gain no extra academic benefit from doing more than 1.5 hours of homework. "Also, not all kids have pressure of homework, if they are smart they will finish their homework in no time and they will have plenty of time to hang with friends and play games,etc." Majority of the students are not that smart, however- they are average. Therefore, this does not exactly prove your point. Also, even a smart student is not guaranteed to "finish homework in no time." Many smart students spend MORE time reviewing and studying, which contributes to why they are smart in the first place. "If not enough time during the week there is always the weekend." But you can't hand in your homework whenever you want. You usually have to hand it in the next day or the assigned due date. "As for parents having a hard time they can always hire a tutor, or if they can't afford to do so then they can send their child to extra help, or go to their local library and ask for assistance." I did not say that parents have a hard time helping their children on homework. I said they would have a hard time helping their children managing everything. The local library can't help with managing time. My opponent then lists a source and some facts stating why homework is good, which has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. I am not questioning whether homework is helpful or not, the whole purpose of the debate is to discuss whether TOO much homework is a good/bad thing. "As for Washington Post, homework does have a benefit, it gives you more experience, and knowledge. Also, it helps you get more practice on the topic." Again, I am not questioning this. The opposing is just proving that homework has a benefit, but -she- has provided no evidence pertaining to why TOO much homework is a good thing.
Homework

Pro says: " Being introduced to homework loads will put stress on the student and they will be unable to join these extracurricular and thus will not find out what they actually enjoy. " First off this decision has nothing to do with extra curricular activities, but to wrap it up there are several activities you can do in your free time, ON THE WEEKENDS! Being pressured in middle school will prepare you for the load in high school, college, and will be a great benefit to prep for tests such as, NWEA, NYS tests math and ELA, and many others. Also, not all kids have pressure of homework, if they are smart they will finish their homework in no time and they will have plenty of time to hang with friends and play games,etc. If not enough time during the week there is always the weekend. As for parents having a hard time they can always hire a tutor, or if they can't afford to do so then they can send their child to extra help, or go to their local library and ask for assistance. As for entering just from elementary, the kids will be introduced to homework load and will have a lot more responsibility. Also not all kids have a curfew, and they will have more experience or begin to experience middle school life. As for Washington Post, homework does have a benefit, it gives you more experience, and knowledge. Also, it helps you get more practice on the topic. According to http://lessonplanspage.com... ten benefits of homework are: - Homework teaches students about time management. -Homework teaches students how to set priorities. -Homework helps teachers determine how well the lessons and material are being understood by their students. -Homework teaches students how to problem solve. -Homework gives students another OPPORTUNITY to review the class material. -Homework gives parents a chance to see what their child is learning in school. -Homework teaches students that they have to do things, even when they don"t want to. -Homework teaches students how to take responsibility for their part in the educational PROCESS. -Homework teaches students how to work independently. -Homework teaches students the importance of planning, staying organized and taking action.
Homework

In middle school, students are just beginning to find their individuality and join many extracurricular activities such as sports. Being introduced to homework loads will put stress on the student and they will be unable to join these extracurriculars and thus will not find out what they actually enjoy. If the student stays with their extracurriculars, they will have difficulty balancing everything and this will lead to a drop in their grades and activity performance, as well as a rise in stress. Moreover, parents will have a difficult time helping their children to manage their time and find a schedule to fit everything. The added stress can lead to fatigue, less sleep, and physical symptoms such as headache and stomach aches. Since the middle schoolers had just come from elementary, the homework loads will be shocking if they just randomly get introduced to an amount of homework that they are not used to. Furthermore, they will not know how to handle everything at once, especially with curfews and bedtimes since they are still fairly young. Also, according to the Washington Post, there are no academic benefits for middle school students after 1 and a half hours of doing homework, so homework loads do not necessarily help academic performance, but rather simply add unnecessary stress. http://www.apa.org... www.washingtonpost.com