BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework should be banned.

What do you think are the purpose of homework? Generally in a school context, homework is actually an assignment given by a teacher for students to complete at abode. Homework should not be banned as it reinforces learning through practice, it allows us to invest our time wisely in doing something productive and it helps us to attain better grades. Hence, with the many advantages of homework, I strongly agree that homework should not be banned. Firstly, homework should not be banned as it aids students in recalling the facts acquired in lessons. For example in the subject of science, the teacher can only spread his or her knowledge of the certain branch of science he or she is educating and the only way for students to understand the theories is through homework. This evidence suggests that homework is vital in enabling students to apply the facts they studied in school to questions. Moreover, some of the questions in the homework may be an application question so this provides a good opportunity for students to understand the world better just by applying concepts to questions. Thus, homework helps students to remember the facts learnt in school. Secondly, homework should not be banned as students can spend their time productively by doing homework. For instance, in order for students to master the concepts and formulas in Mathematics, practice is certainly essential and needed to test and check for the student's understanding. This shows that homework can serve as a guideline for students to practice their knowledge and assuring that the students are able to follow up on the knowledge taught. In addition, homework can help students to practice discipline as it takes initiative to complete homework as a task. In this way, students are not idling around and can work on something that may help them in the mere future. Therefore, students can treasure their time in a smart way by entertaining themselves with homework. Lastly, homework should not be banned as it can aid students in achieving higher scores. For instance in the subject of English, students can improve their writing skills and confidence through writing practices such as essays. This emphasises that homework can be used as an assignment for students to try to improve their current state of knowledge. Furthermore, when students are doing homework, they are more exposed to the various types of questions that may stand a chance of reappearing in their examinations. Consequently, homework can support students in their desire to get more distinct grades. In conclusion, homework should not be banned as it allows students to revise their knowledge, it prevents students from idling around and it helps students to achieve better marks. With the many benefits of homework, I strongly agree that homework should not be banned. After reading this essay, what are your next thoughts about homework?
Heroin maintenance program effect on society.

This is a very controversial topic, but after looking at the facts and how Switzerland adopted this program. It changed my perspective of how this program could really solve lots of problems present with heroin addiction and it's danger to society. My position for this argument is 'Pro", I am supporting the Heroin maintenance program and supporting the view that it should be used in countries where there are heroin epidemics and how it can affect society positively and also to be used much more extensively to cover a much wider range of people.Con will have to argue against the use of such program and how it will be bad for society and affect it negatively. Rules: R1 - Only reliable sources to be used. R2 - Personal opinion should be at the end in one or two paragraphs. R3 - First round is acceptance only.R4 - Round 4 should be used only if necessary and should not exceed 3,000 characters.Info:Rounds - 4Time to argue - 72 hours. Voting period - 10 days. Maximum- 10,000 characters. (NB:- I don't use drugs AT ALL, but I was reading about this program a few days ago and it sparked my interest.)
Internet Censorship

I apologize for forfeiting a round but my opponent did also so we'll skip over that and call it even."there is still freedom of speech"The First Amendment does not protect all kinds of speech. Hate talk, threats and obscenity are not covered under the First Amendment which is what my examples are well examples of. [1]"Freedom of expression exists, so the groups talking about murdering the president should be allowed to exist as long as they don't act on what they say."You do not have the freedom to express your will to kill the president. That is not protected under the First Amendment. Our freedom of speech doesn't cover hate speak, threats, defamation, libel or slander. [2] Those things are still illegal even with the First Amendment. While adhering to the First Amendment internet censorship should be allowed to keep certain terrible things off the internet. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Internet Censorship

You put up a good argument, and I am actually torn, but still going to stand my ground here. Althought those things are horrible, there is still freedom of speech. People can post what they want. However, you neglected to read my response apparently, because you still wrote down that I am for a completely free Internet, which are words I did not say. I am against government input on unneeded topics. Child pornography is illegal, so it's not unneeded to remove that. Freedom of expression exists, so the groups talking about murdering the president should be allowed to exist as long as they don't act on what they say. I am NOT saying that I am FOR these orginazations, I'm saying that they do have the law behind them. Having those up along with their plans could even help us protect the president.
Internet Censorship

Child PornSo you agree that child porn should be allowed to be viewed on the Internet? Under a completely free internet things such as child porn could be viewed any where, on places like Youtube and with no age restrictions. You are in favor of this?Excessive Violence and ObsenityWebsites like bloodshow.com would be visible by all. Brutal beheadings, which have been removed from the web before, would be visible again. You are in favor of this? Children could watch explicit material without any age requirements because requirements would be censorship. Jihadist WebsitesWebsites organizing terrorist attacks and activites have been shutdown and censored here in the US. You're saying they should be allowed to flourish? Websites wishing the president dead, organizing jihadist attacks and praising things like 9/11 should not be allowed on the web.Internet censorship is needed in these cases.
Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives,

"Even terrorists are still people and therefore capable of both change and morality."False. Terrorists can be given chances? Are they not threats to society? Utterly ridiculous. See this is why I see Liberals as less intelligent that conservatives,So are child molesters to be given chances or prison time? "I look forward to seeing how people will vote." Yes, liberals especially. Many liberals lack logic and rational thought, if asked to provide examples of why liberals are no less intelligent than conservatives, then results may be difficult to find. From personal experience, I have not met one single intelligent liberal. Liberals just cannot be reasoned with, you cannot agree with them, they cannot agree with you, I am waiting to see a change in that behavior, now I may seem wrong, but I cannot contradict myself, I just have not seen evidence of "Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives" being true. Maybe I am making a stereotype of the group, maybe they [liberals] should stop calling all Trump Supporters "racists", but are liberals no less ablest than consevatives? I disagree. I have not seen a change, and I would say they can all behave the same, but I just cannot see that statement to be true.Now let me share this excerpt: "Liberals often support the censorship and denial of biblical Christianity" http://www.conservapedia.com...Now I will share a cut-short list of what liberals support (taken from the same website):"Liberals support the following political positions and practices"• limitation of free speech•Murder (through abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia)•Socialism•Gun control•Denial of conservative roles in history•Bigotry•Support for open borders with no border controls or border walls From the list, you can see why many people see liberals are less intelligent.FIN.
Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives,

The fear of a terrorist attack from Muslim refugees is somewhat irrationally placed, only 20 out of 3.25 million refugees in general have attempted terrorism, with only three deaths (The deaths are from Cuban refugees). Very very few terrorists are refugees, in fact a terrorist is much more likely to be born in the area of the attack. With only three deaths at all from refugees so far on us soil, and that the us alone kills an estimated twelve civilians a day since Donald trump has come into office, I would say to simply remember that people are fleeing for a reason. Letting in Muslim refugees prevents far more deaths than the risk of more death. I will say as someone who's father was killed by a terrorist even, that it makes little sense to sentence people to death by locking them in their country. Not to say that your fears in letting in refugees have no stance at all, they are coming from a very much so different culture and some with gladly take the worst of that with them, but your fears are grossly over stated. I will post links to support this at the end of the debate. My story is important to show how many extremists, when their bias is threatened, can change. But that cannot happen if we are too scared to try. Even terrorists are still people and therefore capable of both change and morality. but back on to the rest of the argument so we don't get to of topic. Many liberals are lacking in logical thought, but the same can be said for many conservatives. Same with insults and assault, though race baiting is rare with conservatives. Or have you forgotten charlottesville? You didn't say anything to support, "it is like liberals do not have any common sense. They do not think before they make an action. They resort to race baiting, insults, assault (few occasions) and many other ridiculous methods, in the attempt to prove their assertions. And yet they support many idiotic organizations, ideologies, or even groups of people" that is simply a gross over generalization as far as I see. I look forward to seeing how people will vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I apologize for not using the most reliable sources, but you can look into it yourself and as this isn't major to the argument this will do. https://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives,

"Muslim Refugees. Refugees are people that are fleeing almost certain death Muslim or not, if we show them kindness even the few unknown extremes are able to change"The problem is the refugees and Islam. The liberals must seem to want the refugees, yet they are not aware of the kind of people being brought in. The refugees are coming in from countries where terrorism is high. Let's remember that the perpetrators of the bombings and other attacks in European countries (2015-present) were done by Muslim refugees. Many of the refugees also sympathize with ISIS and othet terrorist groups. Carrying "ISIS" flags, and preaching violence against people of other religions, like the well known incident where Muslims attack Christians at a celebration in France. Here: https://www.youtube.com... And two articles: https://www.jihadwatch.org...http://www.bbc.com...And as for that story, what does that have to do with the main argument?it is like liberals do not have any common sense. They do not think before they make an action. They resort to race baiting, insults, assault (few occasions) and many other ridiculous methods, in the attempt to prove their assertions. And yet they support many idiotic organizations, ideologies, or even groups of people.Your Turn.
Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives,

Though this argument is because of a misspelling, I will argue on my misspelling. Though many liberals exhibit cognitive dissonance, so do many republicans though not always to the extent. Liberals have a heart they just don't always think to back it up with their head, for instance wanting everyone to have medical care yet failing to recognize it's constant failing. I am not republican or liberal and I have views of both, so out of your pre-mentioned I will state what I agree with and why. Muslim Refugees. Refugees are people that are fleeing almost certain death Muslim or not, if we show them kindness even the few unknown extremes are able to change, To explain this I will tell you a story from an Egyptian missionary that goes to our church. He was working out in the middle east in a camp that was to protect citizens from danger in the middle east and they had some wives there of members of ISIS. Three men belonging to ISIS came back to check on their families and found them so well taken care of that right then they quit ISIS and converted to Christianity. Most terrorists claiming alliance to ISIS are from the country the attack happens in anyway, so why leave people to dye out of nothing but fear causing more people to distrust or even hate westerners, Actually of those that was all I agreed with. As someone who spends her life arguing on the internet and is nether right nor left, common simple etiquette is often lost on both sides, as both are often stuck in their ways. I actually know veterans that are liberals, and I've learned the more... Not thought through of them... Are always the loud ones. According to http://www.people-press.org..., "Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP." So even if unwise, they cannot be that stupid.
Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives,

"Liberals are no less ablest than conservatives"I disagree. With the ideas that most liberals have, I see them as less intelligent. Most of them support Hillary, Islam, Muslim Refugees, Black Lives Matter, Open Borders, and many other absurd things. From my research, and observations, I've seen liberals to be a very stupid group of people. In arguments, very few of them use logic and they dismiss facts, many of them are against gun rights, and pro-abortion. How many Intelligent liberals are? Very few. Many liberals are against the United States, they can burn American flags, and insult veterans. "There are many of them who are also against free speech. proof comes from the high priests of the Left – the editorial board of The New York Times. What set them off and displayed their complete lack of intelligence and good sense was their editorial attacking former President Obama for taking a $400,000 speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald." Excerpt of article from: https://townhall.com...Liberals like to use "identity politics" and those that disagree with them or their ideas can be seen as an "Nazi, White Supremacist, Fascist (if an person were to voice their support for Trump)". They also like to use luring and fake facts to verify many of their ridiculous assertions. Many liberals also support Islam, a barbaric religion that originated in the middle east, and open borders (No border, mass waves of illegal immigrants to flow into the United States). “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.” says Dr. Lyle RossiterExcerpt from article http://www.wnd.com..."They [liberals] are like spoiled, angry children. They are rebellious against the normal responsibilities of an adult and demand that the government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”In the article, more examples is given: Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: "creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization, satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation, augmenting primitive feelings of envy, and rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government."
Gun Control Is A Bad Thing

First off I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing with me for the fact of government taking guns away being a violation of the second amendment. Now, however, if the government were to limit the use of arms upon any sort of fire arm, it would still violation. I say this for two different reasons; 1. I'm sure that when framing the constitution, they were quite sure of the extent of what they were doing. A lot of thought was placed into the Bill of Rights, to accommodate for all, regardless of the time period. Now if they were to have put everyone has the right to bear SMALL arms, or possible pistols or something more specific, this would make sense. 2. Now, for this one, I would like to begin with a question for my opponent, If the government, and I realize how drastic of a hypothetical this is, were to limit the use of fully automatic rifles and such, then launch an attack on the people, for, say, a move towards a dictatorship of a government, how would the people defend themselves? I believe that in any form of move like this, this would leave the people at a very disadvantage, thus making the move much easier. I believe a move to remove larger arms from the people would also cause a pretty massive amount of rebellion, and would also leave a lot more people quite unhappy. I understand that this would only be a move to only removes larger arms, but it is also a move towards a limit on the second amendment, which, in short, is only surpassed by the amendment of freedom of speech.
Gun Control Is A Bad Thing

Now first off I want to say that I am not completely against the second amendment. I believe that you should be able to own a gun if you want but I also believe that a private citizen should not have access to certain guns. My point is simple. Columbine and other mass shootings done in recent memory. Imagine how much worse these events could have been had the responsible parties had full grade assault rifles. Now, my opponent makes the argument that gun control would be unconstitutional but the second amendment only says that citizens will have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say the government cannot outlaw some guns and have other ones legal. It still gives citizens right to bear arms but not the kind of arms that can shoot out other arms that shoot out other arms that can shoot out bullets at 5 rounds per second. I have a really hard time thinking these are the kind of "arms" the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when writing the second amendment. It was a time where it was necessary to own a gun for self defense and for food. Now I don't really believe that's the case. Now we have grocery stores and the only highway robberies going on now are gas prices and convenience stores. Again as stated before I don't believe in complete gun control for the same reason that my opponent quoted Ron Paul. Further proof is found in Mexico where owning a gun is illegal but now the only ones who own them are law enforcement and the drug cartels go figure.
Gun Control Is A Bad Thing

Well, I believe I didn't exactly title this and put my standings down appropriately. I'm sorry for that. To clarify, I AM against Gun Control. Moving On, I feel that gun control should not exist for the fact that in place, it would be a direct violation of the second amendment of the bill of rights. Now, to clarify a bit more clearly, however, this does not mean that you should be able to go to a store and buy a gun for absolutely no reason. I feel that you should be able to purchase guns as you please, but with an appropriate license. My grounds for thinking this way, is the following; 1. As said by Ron Paul(and I am paraphrasing here), "If you take the guns away from the people, the government has that much more power over the people." This basically means that if the government were to take guns away from the people, it would be the first step towards an entirely new environment of government. Elaborating more, I'll put it this way; Guns Go Away>Government Moves Towards Dictatorship>People Can't Rebel For The Fact That They Had No Guns 2. It would, as I said, be a violation of the second amendment. Guns are a thing that we have for the protection of ourselves and others, and though they may not always be used in such manors, it is still useful to have them. 3. Looking through history, you'll notice that if people lost their guns, bad things had started to happen.(Please reference my chart above) In short, I feel that if the government were to take guns away from the people, it would be a very bad steps towards dictatorship, and also a violation of the second amendment.
Gun Control Is A Bad Thing

Okay, so this is going to be a short debate about gun control. Rules: 1. No Looking Up Any External Info. Go Straight From Your Knowledge, For Your Entertainment. 2. No Being A Complete Troll. 3. Anything else you would think would be here. 1st Post: Acceptance. 2nd Post: Opening Arguments/ Retaliation 3rd Post: Retaliation/Closing Statements Good luck. 8,000 Character Limit