BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be NO homework on Halloween

My opponent has made the assertion that homework should not be allowed on Halloween. Starting from the beginning, it seems necessary to point out that I was befuddled by my opponents use of the word "should" in the title of the debate. As Dictionary. com defines: Should: Must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. My initial suspicion was that my opponent actually believed that homework should be prohibited on Halloween. That is, he does not merely believe that it would be nice if there were no homework on Halloween, but rather that homework should be legislatively barred from assignment on Halloween. My suspicion was confirmed when I read this in my opponents opening argument: "I believe that on Halloween teachers should not be allowed to give their students homework…" My opponent then creates a false dichotomy between secular and religious holidays. He makes the assumption that students are excused from homework on religious holidays but not secular. Balderdash. Points and questions that need to be addressed by my opponent: 1. Is it true that Teachers are not allowed to assign homework on religious holidays? If so, A. Where is the scholastic policy that mandates teachers to not assign homework on religious holidays? B. What religious holidays are stipulated? If this is not so, A. Why do you find it necessary to prohibit homework on Halloween if it is not prohibited on any other holiday? Secular or otherwise. B. Why try to limit the scholastic endeavors of a teacher by mandating a homework assignment bar? In all my Middle School and High School years, I never remember having no homework on Ash Wednesday, or Good Friday. I typically even had homework over winter break. Easter is always on Sunday, and I can even recall doing homework on some fine Easter days (when Easter did not occur during Spring Break of course). The idea that special benefits are extended to religious holidays is simply not true. Special benefits, if any, are typically extended to federally recognized holidays - a recognition which does not extend to Halloween. Among the eleven federally recognized holidays, only one of them is explicitly religious, and that is Christmas day. My argument for why homework should not be barred on Halloween day: 1. It extends special benefits to a celebration that is not federally recognized - benefits that are not extended to ANY of the actual federally recognized holidays. 2. It offsets the scholastic endeavors of teachers, keeping them from requiring what may be beneficial for student learning. 3. Teachers should not be limited in the assignment of homework. While it may be nice to not have homework on Halloween, a mandatory bar is both absurd and detrimental. Thank you for reading this debate.
While There is a Valid Wage Gap in America, It is not Based Upon Sexism

I will be taking Pro on this one, and my opponent will be delegated as Con. We will be debating along the premises that follow. 1 - There is a wage gap 2 - It is justified 3 - Not based upon sexism [Note] This debate should be impossible to accept. If you do manage to do so, you will automatically forfeit this debate. Please apply in the comments if you would like to debate this topic. Rules: 1 - No trolling 2 - First round acceptance only 3 - Empirical evidence 4 - No ad hominem 5 - No profanity 6 - Equitable conduct and courtesy Thank you, RC-9282 Definitions: Wage Gap - (Noun) The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (e.g., in 2013, women earned 78.3% as much as men aged 16 and over) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men. Valid - (Adj) The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency. Sexism - (Noun) Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
who would win in a fight? Marvel or DC

The Beyonders. The most powerful being in existence. They created everything and are so extremely powerful that the infinity gauntlet is rendered useless on them. All universes are basically the Matrix, they create them as experiments and when something gets boring, they can take a Hulk (for example), and put it with another Hulk in another universe just to create chaos and confusion. They are immortal and invincable and cannot be killed. They are described as omnipotent by Marvel and have identical attributes to the most powerful Gods that man can think of and comprehend.One-Above-All - he is the most powerful being in the marvel multiverse. He alone possesses greater power than the living tribunal and Beyonders. He has taken the form of Jack Kirby to demonstrate what he really is which is the grand authority in the marvel universe. He can defeat anybody and is impossible to kill. His power allows him to kill omnipotent characters. The short round is because of the character limit.
Cigarettes are bad for my health.

I see you have attempted to clarify your initial...vague... statement. I commend you on that. There is, however, the unfortunate consequence (for you that is), that your clarification essentially renders your opening address useless: for it is an irrelevant statement altogether. It appears that you are referring to second hand smoke, now clarifying that you do not in fact smoke cigarettes. You say that cigarette companies say cigarettes are only harmful to you if you smoke them. That is an "appeal to authority" fallacy in that you claim their statements to be true simply because they are a large entity that says so. Has it occurred to you that their statements might be skewed? Surely, if I was the P.R. spokesman for a cigarette company I would not go out and admit that my company's chief product has collateral health effects. You say that my medical knowledge is much less respectable than your doctor's. You are correct. Certainly, I would trust my doctor more. I am afraid, however, that you have drawn an irrelevant conclusion from this truth. You are assuming that your doctor can, with 100% accuracy, predict your health. I can cite several examples when doctors have been wrong. There is also another flaw with your argument. You fail to address the chief statement of this debate. Are cigarettes bad for your health? It is possible that you are perfectly healthy right now because you have had minimal exposure to cigarettes: this does not mean cigarettes are not detrimental to your health. If you are so sure that cigarettes are not detrimental to your health I invite you to spend six hours of your life in a smokers lounge at an airport or hotel or bar (take your pick), or any edifice full of smoking individuals. Do this for four years. I can assure you that your respiratory system will not compliment that decision. If you are arguing that cigarettes do not currently pose any bad side effects to your health then please say so. Using the ambiguity of your statements to your advantage is not effective an effective debating manoeuvre.
Cigarettes are bad for my health.

My initial argument was a statement, not an opinion. The tobacco industry has stated that they are only harmful if you smoke them and I believe them. As an added precaution I not only avoid smoking them, but I am also careful about not to eating any of them. < > I mean no disrespect, but I trust my doctor, his equipment, credentials, experience and reputation over your high school student's medical knowledge. Thanks for coming out!
The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America

This is a controversial topic, relax and let's have a nice debate 2. I will be arguing that "The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America" 3. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) 4. Clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. 5. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time, - Faust
The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America

Starting off, many of the statistics "proving" that the wage gap exists don't account for the fact that women often work for less hours and decide to leave work for family reasons such as maternal leave. This means that it's that women are paid less, but it is that they choose to work less. Thus if we take a man and woman that work in the same job for the same hours, we would see that they are paid the same. "Many fewer women than men said they would be willing to take a job with trade-offs that might significantly affect their lives: moving to a different city, commuting more than an hour each way, or working nontraditional hours. Notably, women with children at home account for many of the differences. Women without children often have attitudes about unemployment that are more similar to men’s, the poll shows. " . https://www.nytimes.com...;Given these facts, the wage gap doesn't exist because women and men would be paid the same in the same job or field if they worked for the same amount of time. Point 2 - The Wage gap doesn't exist in America, because it is illegal to pay women less than men under U. S law. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 made it illegal to pay women less than men for the same job, thus the wage gap does not exist in America because it breaks the law. "The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women be given equal pay for equal work in the same establishment. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. It is job content, not job titles, that determines whether jobs are substantially equal. Specifically, the EPA provides that employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment. ". https://www.eeoc.gov...;However, I am willing to acknowledge that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. An example of that, is drugs. Fortunately, this illegal wage gap can't happen because the government keeps constant data on businesses. This data can range from income, money spent, and employee wages. Thus if illegal wages were given out authorities and the government would know about it. (They learn about how much you make through things such as tax returns and income taxes. )Conclusion - In summary, the Wage gap between men and women doesn't exist in America, because there is no realiable data supporting it, and it is illegal under U. S law.
0.999.... can't equal 1

to express this mathematically Pro arguments are inversely proportional to Con argumentstherefore, my arguments serves as rebuttals already in this case against Pro's arguments as well as a point. Argument 1: Fractionnow lets put the equation into fractions by dividing 3when 0.999. .. divides by 3, it equals to 0.333. .. also 1/3 when 1 divides by 3, it equals to 1/3 directly x=0.999. .. . y=1so here, x/3 = y/3therefore, X=YArgument 2: Algebralet x= 0.999. .. 10 x = 9.999. ..10x - x = 99x = 9 x = 1 Argument 3: Additional mathematics geometrical progression0.999. .. Separate into: 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009. .. .in this case a=0.9 r=0.1 Using sum to infinity formula a/1-r =0.9/ 1 - 0.1=0.9/0.9=1 I had fun revising my maths and add maths for tmr's paper, and still this is fun :D . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.purplemath.com...;http://www.askamathematician.com...;
0.999.... can't equal 1

First of I would like to state that 0.999.... is practically a good option, and should continue in use as it would mess up a fewthings were we to change it. Second off the biggest problem with 0.999... repeating should not be 1 simply because even at infinite 9s there is still infinite more ways to make it smaller. People say we can't get that 0.000..;1 to fill in the number so we should assume it's not theren However we should assume it's there because that would defeat the purpose of 0.999.... repeating because it would mean it was both 1 and infinitely less than 1. This obviously doesn't hold much weight. I await my opponent tomake his arguments. I would also like to note that this is a learning experience personally, to see if I missed any evidence concerning this issue. So bring up anything concerning this issue. Thank you.
0.999.... can't equal 1

His aegument was thrilling to read. And I will concede that mathematically and algebraicly the notion holds true. Bit I still don't know how it is two values at the same time. Perhaps i am just understanding how math works, butbi was always taught that multiple representations may represent one value, but one representation does't represent two. . Thank you for your insights, and I ask you once again to prove me wrong.
Women more important for the society to develop than men

Mundebater has proven that women are more important than men for society to produce a next generation. He has failed to prove how women are mroe important than men for society to develop. He raises poeple like Einstein as example of society developers; Einstein was a man. He then fallaciously claims that mothers are very important for child's pre-education; the father figure is just as important, if not more so. (https://www.childwelfare.gov...)
Women more important for the society to develop than men

I believe that women are more important for the development of a society. Because first of all there are many important women artists and scientists. And women have an important place in our world too. But unfortunately in the past women weren't educated enough. So most of the important persons are men folk. But that doesn't mean that they are more important for the development of a society. Most importantly almost every scientist or successful person had a mother. Mothers are very important for a child's pre-education. So we can tell that if a person did something serious that is their mothers success too.
The Miami Heat will win the finals again.

The Miami Heat by signing Greg Oden and Michael Beasley will win their third straight championship. Now that they have a true center Chris Bosh can play the 4. With Michael Beasley now able to play the backup 3, they have two solid players at each position. The heats weakness last year was rebounding, while they wont be strong on the glass it wont be as much of a problem with Greg Oden. Even though some teams have a stronger defense than the heat, they still have a good defense. Some people say how bad Dwyane Wade played in the finals, but I think he will get back to playing well. He doesn't need to be a top five player and a 30 point plus scorer for them to three peat.
The Miami Heat will win the finals again.

I know that I am the one saying the Heat will win. I am not saying the big three are not still very good, but Bosh and Wade did not play very well in the finals. I am saying that, as we saw with the LeBron Cavaliers, you need other players and I would say they need even more than a below average Wade and Bosh. My point is that all the role players are going to push the Heat to a heat three peat, not just LeBron.
The Miami Heat will win the finals again.

This is what LeBron wanted to accomplish when he came to Miami Heat in 2010. He wanted to win many champions. He wanted to be king of NBA. Little did he know the toll it would take. You talk about the big3 as if they're all 40 years....Truth is, the big three all posted carer highs in shooting last season and all had great season. Name me another SG that shot above 50% and I'll will wait. Miami's only concern is with the Nets because they're a new team...Order than that,if the Big3 is healthy come playoffs, don't bet against them.
m93samman should rejoin debate.org as an active member

I sincerely apologize for missing the round. I didn't do this to ironically show that I will be inactive or don't care about the website- hopefully you all will understand. Like Pro said and like the debate implies, I am certainly open to returning the site. It is simply not as attractive to me as it was before. I'll explain why. For this round, I'm going to reply to my opponents arguments in the sequence in which they arrived. The replies I make will essentially serve as my arguments against returning. Pro begins by saying that the core of the site as it once was is still intact; indeed this is true, but the additions and changes have left it rather foreign to me. Back in the day, "Forums" covered the "Opinions" and "Polls" drop down tabs and there was no problem with it. Now, with the exact same sub-topics under all of the tabs, the site is not only wasting a lot of space but is also redundant. Polls are a way to collect opinions, and opinions are shared in forums. I don't need to split my vote, my opinion, and my ideas. As far as members are concerned, I actually don't have a problem with interacting with new people. What does bother me though is that for me to develop the same relationships (very loosely speaking) with the new member base would take time and effort, neither of which I am particularly able to give. I will begin pursuing my Master's degree in engineering this fall and the time commitment to it will most likely be full-time, the same as was my Bachelor's degree that kept me busy when I first left this site many years ago. My opponent is correct in stating that the site was in horrible condition many years ago. However, if that had pushed me into leaving I would not have returned in the first place. I was comfortable the way it was, and got a good chuckle out of the occasional troll. It is actually my personal life that pulled me away. I had no bad sentiments towards the site at the time that I left. Additionally, I was a debater in my high school years and continued to judge debates for the first year or so of my undergraduate career. After I stopped judging, I also slowly lost interest in the site. The ELO system is very nice, as is the new voting system. I noticed both as a rejoined and am very happy to see them. Although they clean up the site and allow for a more competitive nature amongst the users, it is not the key to my return. I currently see little reason for me to cram my personal life with an additional commitment. Thank you to the readers for taking the time to read, and to my opponent for making the effort to bring me back. In voting, feel free to either vote according to who you believe won OR according to whether or not you would like for me to return to the site. Whichever you choose, make sure to submit a reason for your decision along with your vote.
m93samman should rejoin debate.org as an active member

Greetings to all users of debate.org. In an extended hiatus, I was overcame to login to DDO for a reason that I can't quite place my tongue on. Upon logging in, I have found that the website has changed considerably. The active users I once new are for the most part gone, and a new set of users has taken their place. The website format is largely changed, and I find navigating it far more difficult than I care to admit. As I currently see it, I find no compelling reason to resume activity on the website as I once did several years ago. If anyone cares to convince me otherwise, I will consider becoming active once again. However if I were to win this debate, I will most likely return to my status of absence. Truth be told, I might not even participate in this debate- on the bright side, I am certainly making an effort. Good luck!
if I perceive something different than you does that mean that I am in my own reality

I disagree, for you don't have your own reality. You have a different perspective for the same reality. If we both stand in front of a mirror, we'll both see each other ONLY. That is reality. You don't live in an alternate reality, but you have a different view of the world and the events happening around you. You can only perceive few things differently, but reality is the same, for we'll see stars everyday, we all have to go to school, and if a nuke comes you and I both will not survive. I don't get how you think you live in your own reality, for I would have been writing what you wanted to read then, not what I want to say.
if I perceive something different than you does that mean that I am in my own reality

I will leave this very open if I look up into the sky and you were standing next to me and you look up into the sky too will you see the same thing as me or will you see something different in the clouds that I don't see are you right or am I wrong am i right are you wrong because I see it differently does that mean I'm in my own reality separate from yours is what we see an illusion created by our eyes
My vision of Communism

"The way that Communism works is that there are no social classes which is a society where there are no one above you to rule over you and that there are no one beneath you that you rule." Then there will be absolutely no structure such as a head teacher to lead a school's teaching staff or an Army General to lead the soldiers in war. In fact there will literally be no parent to lead their child in life whatsoever and no police force to take down criminals since both would be equally ranked. This would lead to uncivilised chaos whereby no progress could proceed."Since the people is[are] in power which includes you then you will technically own it because you are the government so you want lose anything in a communist society." This point is irrelevant to the debate because /not losing something' by doing something doesn't justify doing it. It's like saying "you won't lose anything by having sex with a teddy bear" that doesn't mean it should be done."In a communist society you will not be needing the that high of a salary because almost everything is free and provided by the government and you should be getting a longer education because if that's how you will get the job that you have always wanted" But if there is no high salary then why would any sane person bother to work their butt off to be a CEO as opposed to a standard office worker? There simply is no motivation. This would mean there'd be no leaders and motivators in any company and complete chaos would break out."I have heard many people saying that they wont give there money for the good of the society because they are afraid of the getting into the pockets of some homeless alcoholic and to that I have to say that it's the most ridicules thing I have ever heard of because of course no one would want there money to be given to a alcoholic" Your point proves nothing and in fact supports the con side of this debate.I have attacked every single line of debate you offered in favour of your version of communism. Thanks for reading the debate, I hope you have a very nice day.