BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Winnie the Pooh is part of the illuminati

the illuminati hand gesture is when a person makes the shape of a triangle with their hands. If you are interested with the rumours about Yo Yo Honey Singh, I do encourage you to research it, it's quite interesting. Another of my theories come from debate.org itself, in all honesty, it's where I learned about the treats of Pooh bear. A user here, called @kawynk, asked the question "is pooh bear part of the illuminati ?" and the responses to that question are hard rock proof, if you ask me. 100% of users that voted said yes, and one response particularly convinced me : "He Just is Pooh bear is the leader of the illuminati. How do I know this? Well, let me tell you. Pooh bear is the leader because of his honey addiction and also, I just know. I am Gandolf the great. Don't question me. Illuminati Confirmed. I know Everything about everything haha haha." So, if I may ask, if Gandalf the great HIMSELF acknowledges the dark side of the Pooh Bear, who are we to question him ? Thank you.
Winnie the Pooh is part of the illuminati

The more I hear, the more convinced I am. I am shocked by this evidence. I have always considered Winnie the Pooh to be a cute lovable character with an eating disorder. However I am still not convinced this is enough evidence to make a full claim as Yo Yo Honey is only rumored to be part of the illuminati and not confirmed. I am not familiar with illuminati hand gestures, is there any doctrine that gives evidence to this? I am eager to learn more about this potential threat to society, and I hope you can come up with enough evidence to fully support your claim.
Homework should be banned.

Please note this is a FIVE MINUTE debate as you probably have already noticed. Your argument does not contain any information that implies homework should be banned. Homework should not be banned because some students need help. Without homework, some newly learnt material can be lost through no revision. Homework allows them a chance to retain the information learnt for test day. This, in turn, gives them better grades. For the already proficient, homework should not be a problem. Thank you.
Homework should be banned.

I am hoping I understand your format right: I am arguing that the definition of schoolwork is incorrect as the homework is not actually required; A student chooses to do the work assigned to get something in return for a grade. It is only required that a student earns high enough grades to move on to the next, but they can technically get away with not doing the homework if they choose and stay in that grade. I only have 2 minutes so this is my first argument.
Homework should be banned.

Round Five Already! Like I said this was fun. ------------------- Final rebuttal: The students can still use their books from class. They would already have them. You're right; but it doesn't have to be required; it can be an extra credit for those who want to excel; also giving students HARDER homework when they don't understand the regular will only cause issue. -------------------- In conclusion homework should be banned as it adds stress to the child, teaches them to grade themselves on something like understanding information compared to their peers, which causes low-self eseem, or esteem based on others, Strains the relationship of parents and child if the student doesn't do well. Homework does not teach students information, but makes them practice a previously taught method; and if they did not undertsand the first time they will not have really learned the work.Classwork is a more viable option for giving students example, with the benefit of a teacher near. Banning it will give students time to devleop their skills in the real world,as with extra curricular activities that they have interest in; they can work if they are old enough which gives them a head start in the work force, gives them time to take care of their health, like giving them time to exercise and sleep better and enjoy life.
Homework should be banned.

You said that students can study at home if homework is banned. But why create another layer of annoyance of obtaining the books? And teachers can hand out extension (harder) homework to suit the needs of specific students. You said that it wastes time. But, you need homework to be able to do that, for example how is the time supposed to help them if they don't know 1+1 ? My opponent has not rebutted the fact that loosening homework will help. Besides, homework helps revise & strengthen material learnt and lets them gain responsibility of their actions Thank you
Homework should be banned.

On Banning Homework: Banning homework won't negatively affect those who enjoy home study. Those students will simply study in a different way from a required format or sheet, but it is actually more likely that the student can learn the material better by studying on their own in way they actually understand. A real life example is Ben Carson who studied on his own instead of in lecture, because his learning style was different. ------------- The examples only work if the student can understand how to get through them; but classwork is just as easily a way to give students example on how to do the work, and is better as the teacher is right there to help explain. The homework does not guarantee that the student will not forget. Students can also learn the same skills by using their time without homework to learnt to manage social life, and put thought into their future. It gives them time for extracurricular which also drives them towards a career based on their interest; something they don't have time for now because of homework.
Homework should be banned.

The examples given in homework strengthen the student's skill by reinforcing it. The student already learnt the subject in the homework successfully, but to prevent forgetting the matter, the information and work is repeated on a constant basis. This ensures that the student has really mastered the content instead of having simply "memorised the content temporarily".Homework teaches other non-work related things like responsibility as well. They learn that it is their duty to hand in their homework, and they will face consequences for not doing so. I will expand in the next argument.Thank you
Homework should be banned.

This is not completely true; students may not understand that the homework is to their benefit, and technically it is not. Homework does not teach the student the information in any different way that the student can understand, It only gives the student example to work our the problem in a way that was already taught, and if the original way of teaching did not make the subject clear the the student, then the student still will not learn. TO learn the student needs to be taught to understand the information and work it out.
the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

can reality happen? or is it, are you reading these Words, or can you be reading them? false=imaginary i know there is no dog in my room right now, and as far as i know you could be a women or a man kNow=Now i cant go back in time, so even if i go to your house and meet you and you are wearing a hat, and tell me you have been wearing it all day, i might as well not have gone to your house at all, i still have to imagine it
the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

Your brain can cause you to see things that other people cannot see, these are called hallucinations. Its your brain that processes what you are seeing, without the brain, you wouldnt see things because you can process it. Your brain can falsely process what you are seeing and cause you to see something that isnt really there, which is a reason that your claim is faulty.Just because your brain doesnt process that I am wearing a hat, doesnt mean that I am not wearing a hat in reality
Minecraft sucks 5

My Case from round 2: Minecraft cannot suck because its basically a virtual world programmed by a computer and has no abilities to suck (like this debate or any other website/game) Poor graphics, music, or gameplay does not change the fact that a game cannot draw liquid through a suction force. Pro has yet to refute my correctly defined stance. Also, you cannot use subjective claims to describe weather a game "good or bad". This is irrelevant however, Pro has used nothing for comparison for something to "suck" therefore the game can be viewed as perfect.
Minecraft sucks 5

Here's the thing When you create a debate you have to clearly label all the definitions to avoid people accepting on the different definitions. I already showed you the correct definitions of "suck" and your own source , had nothing to do with your intended definitions. Which means, you agreed with my definition because your own source says so! Now, I can easily discard your arguments because this was unfair. I labeled my own definitions, and now your changing the definition of the word? That's really unfair You even gave the source to your own intended definitions and it had nothing to do with "bad".
Minecraft sucks 5

Im calling unfair conduct on pro. I had the intentions to accept this debate under the correct, cited definitions. Even pro's own source on the definition on suck has nothing to do with "bad". So we can safely assume (according to Pro's source) that he agrees with the definiton of suck. My Case:Anyway, minecraft cannot suck because its basically a virtual world programmed by a computer and has no abilities to suck (like this debate.)Bonus Parody Song:I look, at Pros definitions and I see its all lackingWhile this debate gently weeps. I look at this website and I see it needs sweeping, Still Mikal Gently leaves...I dont know why...Nobody informed you...About how these semantics work I dont know how you would pick your stance Now youve been bought and sold too I look at this debate and I see that it is turning While this debate gently weeps With every undefined word, you must surely be learning Still that Mikal gently leaves...I dont know how you got distracted You used them slang terms too I dont know how...You never noticed about these semantics No one alerted you I look, at Pros definitions and I see its all lackingWhile this debate gently weeps. I look at this website and I see it needs sweeping, Still Mikal Gently leaves...Based off of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" By George Harrison, Beatles Orginial Song: ;
Minecraft sucks 5

Sorry for this misunderstanding but im saying minecraft is bad. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... As i was saying this is why minecraft sucks: So minecraft sucks bacause: Laggy Bad graphics Lame combat Wrong kind of music during the wrong time(minor) Glitchy Unfinshed product as there are TOO many bug fixes which seemed like they planned it from the start to keep it fresh. Addictive Minecraft merchandise and handbooks are also expensive scams. I will save my words and will debate more later.
Minecraft sucks 5

I accpet Definition of sucks: 1.to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue 2. to draw something from or consume by such movements3. to apply the mouth to in order to or as if to suck out a liquid http://www.merriam-webster.com...Pro has not labeled the correct definitions, so I will go ahead and do that for him. Your welcome pro Good luck
A Corporation can be "too big to fail"

Thanks for an interesting topic darkkermit. It is one I (claim to) know a great deal about. The Glass-Steagall Act, passed during the Great Depression, prevented the merger of commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. There were good reasons for doing so, as I'll explain in the next round. The REPEAL of the Glass-Steagall Act, under the deregulation regime of President Clinton (and due almost entirely to the lobbying of Senator Phil Gramm), allowed the formation of ENORMOUS mega-banks that were "too big to fail." For example, Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers Insurance all merged together, immediately after Glass-Steagall's repeal, to form a mega-bank, i.e. Citigroup. Citibank was a commercial bank (which keeps deposits); Smith Barney was an investment bank (which creates investment vehicles, like "mortgage backed securities"), and Travelers was an insurance group (which includes offering to insure the financial losses of investment banks). I'll discuss later why combining them is bad, but this is just for background. You'll come to see why Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls Phil Gramm the "father of the financial crisis" (of 2008). It's obviously important for my purposes that a "corporation" include banks. The fact that Citigroup is listed as "Citigroup Inc.," which means it is "incorporated," or registered with the government as a "corporation," should hopefully suffice. As the instigator, darkkermit seems to accept the burden of proof, which would mean he has the BURDEN to show that the failure of mega-banks would not have had ripple effects throughout the economy. Remember the following banks received bailouts: Fannie and Freddie, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, American Express, Comerica, Capital One, Lincoln Financial, and hundreds of other banks. [1] The failure of ONLY Lehman Brothers, when the government refused to bail them out, touched off said financial crisis. If I do nothing and darkkermit fails to present a scenario in which the simultaneous failures of ALL OF THOSE BANKS does not hurt the economy, I win because he fails to meet the burden of proof. I await his case with baited breath. [1] http://projects.propublica.org...
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best

My opponent has been online plenty of times in the past 3 days, yet has chosen not to respond to my arguments... probably because he had no real intentions of debating this, and just wanted me to write a case for his upcoming HS debate. That said, this has been essentially a 1 round debate in which I have addressed and negated Pro's 2 contentions, but he has not responded to any of my 7 arguments. I'd like to thank Pro anyway for the opportunity of debating this hot topic in current events and perhaps we will meet again. Thanks and good luck :)
white people are recieveing more discrimination than any other race

My statement as stands as pro, - Firstly i am not a racist i believe in all equalities of life. Howether i sincerely believe that in The last years, white people have been the more relaxed obective for racism , Because white people have never been seen as a threat in the terms of war, slavery etc it has never been notified My belief is that society has became biased, and that there is a steroetypical belief that white people can never become victims of racism because they have always been the ring leaders for it Be nice to start :)
The United States should break ties with Israel.

With thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate, I am also up against the clock and will, therefore, be equally brief. Firstly, I am not suggesting sanctions should be imposed on either China or Russia. Certainly in the case of China, which ran a $273 billion trade surplus with the US in 2010, economic sanctions would do much more harm than good. If trade between the two countries ceased, the cost of goods and services in the US, and therefore inflation, would spiral out of control. The US economy would likely collapse while China, which has a foreign exchange reserve large enough to "buy the whole of Italy, or all the sovereign debt of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain as of 2011, plus Google, Apple, IBM and Microsoft plus all the real estate in Manhattan and Washington DC, plus the world's fifty most valuable sports franchises" (1) could weather the storm and be in a stronger position than ever when the dust settled. The point is, if the US really wants to be a force for good in the world, to defend human rights and to promote democratic principles around the world, she cannot do so with any credibility while still supporting Israel, a state that abuses human rights on a wholesale basis and denies the Palestinians their fundamental right to political self-determination. Regarding race and segregation, Israel was the creation of the Zionist movement who dreamt of fulfilling their religious obligation to create a wholly Jewish State, completely free of Gentiles "non-Jews". "The Mitzvah of Settling the Land: The mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel requires Am Yisrael to conquer Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: "And you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land, and dwell in it, for I have given you the Land to possess it (Bamidbar 33,53)". It also is written "For you shall pass over the Jordan River to go in and possess the Land which the Lord your G-d gives you, and you shall possess it, and dwell in it (Dvarim 11,31)." "Pikuach Nefesh: The Talmud in the tractate of Eruvin (45,a) and the Shulchan Aruch (orach chaim 329,6) explain that giving away any part of the Land of Israel to the enemy, even a small concession, invites an even greater risk and danger to both Israel and the Jewish nation. " "They Should not Dwell in Your Land: In addition to the mitzvah of settling the Land, the Torah further commands that "They shall not dwell in thy Land" (Shemot 23,33). The Rambam ruled (Hilchot Avoda Zara 10,6) that when the Land is under strong Jewish rule nobody should be allowed to dwell in Israel who is not a "Ger Toshav" (a non Jew that keeps the seven mitzvot of Noach)." So we can see that Israel's goal is to go even further than that of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, which merely segregated races, and expel or exterminate all non-Jews in Israel and Palestine: which is an ironic policy given the history of the Jewish Diaspora in 20th Century Europe. Thank you. (1) Fenby, Tiger Head, Snake Tails, Chapter 1. (2) http://www.yeshiva.org.il...
The United States should break ties with Israel.

This is a response to Brian's opinion on "Should the US boycott Israel? ":. http://www.debate.org...His opinion in full: "Israel continues to flout international law on a wholesale basis, and its illegal occupation of Palestine and its oppression of Arabs in Israel has been widely condemned by the United Nations and numerous human rights organisations. In addition, Israel is possesses nuclear weapons but refuses to sign up to the Treaty on Nuclear Non Proliferation or allow independent inspection of her nuclear facilities. By politically, militarily and financially supporting the Israeli regime the US has made many enemies in the Arab world and has lost the respect of other developed nations in Europe and Asia. America must join the international community in condemning Israeli aggression and the persecution of Arabs, and boycott Israel just as the US boycotts other rogue nations. "Since the US (barring an official trade embargo) couldn't actually force every one of its citizens to boycott Israel, the resolution I will be arguing against would be that the US should break all federal military, diplomatic, and economic ties with Israel. If Brian disagrees with this definition, he is welcome to provide his own (or clarify that he thinks an actual trade embargo should be put in place against Israel). Rules:(1) Pro can either make an argument or simply accept for the first round. If he doesn't, then my first argument will respond to the claims made in his opinion. (2) The debate should be structured in a readable, coherent fashion. (3) No trolling or lawyering. (4) The BOP is shared. Pro must show that there are compelling reasons for the United States to break relations with Israel, and Con must show that there are stronger reasons why the United States should remain close with Israel.
The United States should break ties with Israel.

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has not even attempted to address my various refutations of his claims. He seems to have conceded on all accounts (and it will be a cheap tactic indeed if he merely waited until the final round to actively refute me). Aside from his bizarre monologue on China, my opponent's sole relevant argument in his previous round is as follows: "The point is, if the US really wants to be a force for good in the world, to defend human rights and to promote democratic principles around the world, she cannot do so with any credibility while still supporting Israel, a state that abuses human rights on a wholesale basis and denies the Palestinians their fundamental right to political self-determination."This is an utterly bare assertion. I pointed out that Israel had close diplomatic ties with most of the civilized world and wasn't a pariah state, and that the US's support for Israel by no means directly harmed relations with other countries. Pro has not even attempted to respond to this.Pro then completely ignores my refutations of the apartheid claim, and begins quoting passages from (ancient and medieval) Jewish literature and theology in order to show what the "real goal" of the Zionists is."Israel was the creation of the Zionist movement who dreamt of fulfilling their religious obligation to create a wholly Jewish State, completely free of Gentiles "non-Jews."This is completely false. The early Zionist movement was a overwhelmingly secular movement calling for the establishment of a state for the Jews in the region of Palestine, not a theocratic state free of goyim. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, explicitly called for a liberal, democratic, Jewish nation: [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]. Other Zionists such as Einstein demanded full equality for Arabs and fought against the minority hard-right, rejecting any claims of Jewish supremacy. Israel was founded as a socialist country and, indeed, every one of its Prime Ministers before 1977 (including Ben-Gurion) belonged to the Israeli Labor Party: [http://en.wikipedia.org...].In its Basic Laws (similar to a constitution), Israel defines itself not only as a Jewish state, but as a democratic one: [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]42% of modern Israelis consider themselves secular rather than religious: [http://www.haaretz.com...]. 58% of Israelis (keeping in mind that Israel is the most religious that it has ever been) support a two-state settlement despite the suicide bombings and attacks by the Palestinians: [http://www.jpost.com...]. Merely because certain religious factions espouse a religious state free of Arabs does not mean that every single Jew wants to, unless of course we subscribe to Pro's logic, in which believing in a certain ideology or religion also requires that you take that idea to absurd extremes. It's like suggesting that all Mongolians want to conquer the world because the founder of their nation (Genghis Khan) wanted to.I invite Pro to provide even one poll or study showing that the majority of Jews want to cleanse the Holy Land of goyim.I now conclude my arguments for the debate.
This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

Hello, and welcome to my next debate. 16kadams, probably one of the most formidable and respected debaters on this site for conservative beliefs against myself, it certainly shall be an interesting debate. ===Opening Jokes==='My Dad used to say 'always fight fire with fire', which is probably why he got thrown out of the fire brigade. '===Definitions===No difference theory: The rejection of necessary difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the action of child-rearing. ===Rules===No semantical squirelling. The opponent for this debate is 16kadams. The forfeit of a round counts as a conduct point to the opposite side. More than one forfeit from one side counts as a full seven-point concession.