BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That Homework Should be Banned

Hello Debate.Org. I am here to convince you that homework shouldn't be banned and why it is beneficial for you. I will speak about two points,my first point being that homework builds a sense of responsibility and commitment towards schoolwork and my second point being that homework builds on skills that are learnt in class. My first point is that homework builds a sense of responsibility and commitment towards schoolwork. Everyone will have to face the fact that one day they would have to get a job, most jobs require the skill of responsibility and organisation. This is achieved by homework. Studies have proven that homework does improve the stability of a student in school. A study has (where is the study from reference) compared the achievement of 20 students who have homework and who do not in 1962 (try and find a newer stat, they can rebut and say that it is too old). The results were outstanding, 14 students showed a benefit in doing homework, meanwhile 6 felt no benefit at all. I myself am very busy, having out of school activities and other assigned tasks from other classes. "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world" this is quoted by Nelson Mandela. He is telling us that we can do anything we want, we can go anywhere we want to be if we are given the right education. Homework brings up the skill of participation, this increases each student"s individual involvement in applying specific skills and knowledge while enjoying learning. This brings me to my second point, homework builds on skills that are learnt in class. Only the talented will pick up tricky maths and confusing science equations in one lesson, having homework improves your skill of the subject. Have you ever heard of the saying "practice makes perfect" this falls into play with homework. Homework gives each student an opportunity to demonstrate mastery of skills taught in class; to increase speed, mastery and maintenance of skills. According to an article published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, homework gives you positive affects such as advancing your knowledge of the subject and opening your mind up to learn and create. Harris Cooper, an educational psychologist, performed a "meta-analysis" which is a statistical technique for combining numerous studies into the equivalent of one giant study. Cooper performed a meta-analysis on numerous homework studies. About 70% of these found that homework was associated with higher achievements in learning. Henceforth homework broadens knowledge and builds on skills that are learnt in class.
vaccines may cause autism.

My opponent has deactivated her account and forfeited her final round, effectively not only situating the decisive vantage onto my side with her preous arguments refuted and her only source dismantled. While there were a few things of note, I would like voters to simply note that I was attempting to refute both the "argument"--the posited new discovery and turn in thinking that would somehow substantiate the premise of my opponent's position, as well as her "source"--the review. I critiqued and tried to deconstruct the overview of a connection between the adminstration of a vaccine and autism with the use of credible sources. I may admit my argument was odd but it was an exercise in flexibility in merging a general refutation of the three main hypotheses in the aforemntioned position and a critique of the overview. I should note, in a few implications that were glimpsed over, cursorily, in my rebuttal: the synthesis of multiple theoretical causes is largely unfounded, and the methodology in which such causes have been deemed valid are flawed given the extensive evidence against each premises and underlying assumptions, that, as mentioned by a member, is enough to have largely grounded the scientific community's opinions in opposition to Pro's position here.
vaccines may cause autism.

Thank you, Sir, for accepting the challenge. And good luck to you. For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism. The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them. this is not the only evidence of a connection. Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue. Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it is: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombination. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual." Ratajczak's article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination.
vaccines may cause autism.

I accept this challenge and would like to challenge Pro to prove her case, as she holds the burden of proof and responsibility for showing how "vaccines are responsible for many autism cases". Note however that such a burden of proof is modified by a link to the scientific method, in verifying this theory:The link of the scientific method to Pro's case is that Pro would need to demonstrate empirical evidence for her theory that is sound and reliable and adhere to the steps of the scientific method as well. As stated, a scientific theory is well-substianted and empirical evidence derived from experiments in studies or forays should be provided, along with knowledge. After all, conclusions can be made based on prior knowledge on the matter. I will briefly explore the scientific method in te next round.As for my introduction, I'll post one definition as a refinement. My opponent defines the autism spectrum but I will narrow down the definition to just Autism:Autism (1):______________________________________________________________________________"Autism" means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and non-verbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. Autism does not apply if a child's education performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has a serious emotional disturbance, as defined in subrule 41.50(2). A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after the age of three could be identified as having auitsm if the crieria in the first sentence of this subrule are satisfied. This term includes all conditions described by the term "autism spectrum disorder," which adversely affects a child's educational performance. Proposed State of Iowa Educational Definition: Accepted only as Educational Description______________________________[1. http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu...]________________________________________________________________________ Scientific Method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.Empirical: derived from or guided by experience or experiment___________________________________________________I wish my opponent good luck. This is a new debate for me, after such a long period of time.:)(1) A new definition is being formulated in response to the vagueness of the definition of autism and other related diseases in the spectrum.
vaccines may cause autism.

I believe vaccines are responsible for many autism cases. I invite an opponent to dispute this. Some definitions need to be clarified, any uncertain phrases can be discussed in the comments, but the most important definitions being: Autism Spectrum: a range of conditions including autism, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), characterized by. Social difficulties, stereotyped or repetitive behaviors and interests, and in some cases, cognitive delays. Vaccine: A substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease
A Tale of Two Cities is Above the Bible

I make no claims. I am agnostic and skeptical. I have also never read this book. Take me on a journey and convince me you're right. Just so I know what you're up against. - The bible has a LOT of potentially entertaining violence. - Better fairy tales than the grimm brothers - Talking Snakes - Huge cult following both figuratively and literally. - Has more sequels than harry potter. - God gets mad laid - People's brains explode when you tell them it's fake. Give it rewatchability. Your floor.
A Tale of Two Cities is Above the Bible

There is this belief that god is the ultimate being. That is wrong. There is a being higher then god, And that is Charles Dickens. Reading his manifesto, A Tale of Two Cities, I stand bewildered as I feel my intelligence levels multiplying at levels farther than I can comprehend. My powers, If quantifiable, Have triumphed to heights higher than the Eiffel Tower, Larger than the sun, And faster than the speed of light. Yes. They say that Jesus can turn water into wine. CHARLES DICKENS CAN TURN WATER INTO NATURAL GAS AND SOLVE THE ENERGY CRISIS. Checkmate, Atheists.
The Bible is True

Are you kidding me? I have already done my research on this topic before and I've read the same article that you have just copied and pasted. I don't think you deserve any credit for that. http://www.essentialblog.com... is the website. But, I am going to put in some effort unlike you. 1. If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding. 2. If the flood actually happened like the Bible depicted and there were only eight people that survived, what were the chances of them continuing a family and telling the tale? 3. The Bible states that the Earth is "resting on pillars" and angels being on the "corners of Earth." You seriously can't believe the Earth is flat can you?
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

Jersey Shore has much to offer on such fine points as the results of using a ridiculous amounts of tanning creme and how to call yourself something so absurd that no one will ever take you seriously and Oh God why does he call himself The Situation how could anyone ever be so incredibly stupid. Also, Pit Boss is about midgets beating up people for abusing pit bulls, I think, so it's worth watching if nothing for no other reason than to hope for the episode where 10 midgets bust in and wrestle Michael Vick. I still stand by my point that anytime spent debating is time not spent watching South Park. While the debate may not be about if you will or not but if you should, I feel that any time debating will still be time spent not watching South Park. As you appear to be in perfectly healthy condition, even without the external stimuli of Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny. I fact, I'd say that you seem to be even more intelligent than the average South Park watcher. I have attached an image of a graph comparing the intellects of people currently using Debate.org as opposed to those watching South Park. I believe that it speaks for itself. http://i51.tinypic.com...
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

Well, as he does agree that south park has much to offer, why would I go to such bad shows as Jersey shore or "pit boss". These shows have little to no value, while south park is hilarious and engaging, because it makes fun of all values and therefore is contriversial It does engage, so much so that Matt and Trey were threatened to be killed because of how they engaged the audience in a specific show. http://www.sfgate.com... Also, the issue isn't will I stop watching, it is should I stop watching I stop watching? therfore, I am allowed to take some time and post on this debate
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

South Park is a wonderful show. It offers much food for thought under the guise of being satirical and is very humorous. However, you as a person should most definitely cease the watching of it right away. There are many kinds of shows for people such as yourself on the market. I hear Pit Boss is rather good, as is Jersey Shore. However,seeing as South Park is for people just bored enough to watch a group of grade school level children continuously spout expletives while taking on pop culture references ranging from Barack Obama to Barbara Streisand, it is certainly not engaging enough for someone that would ask another person to argue with them over if they should be watching it or not. As such, the rest of this debate will be moot, as odds are that you will not be watching the actual show the entire time you are attempting to prove your point, and therefore will be conceding before you even start. I move that, unless my opponent is willing to spend this entire debate focused solely on the show South Park, I have already succeeded in proving he has stopped watching the television show South Park, even if only for the few moments it takes him to respond.
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

I'll start with my definitions "southpark"- South Park is an American animated sitcom created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the Comedy Central television network. Intended for mature audiences, the show has become famous for its crude language, surreal, satirical, and dark humor that lampoons a wide range of topics. The ongoing narrative revolves around four boys—Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman and Kenny McCormick—and their bizarre adventures in and around the titular Colorado town http://en.wikipedia.org... "I"- me -profile name- boredinclass This doesn't have to be a serious debate, I don't care about conduct.
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe my debate has spoken for itself by having me speak for it. My opponent is obviously a cocaine addicted TV celebrity with a grudge against NBC simply looking to get into Comedy Central's good graces by praising their most popular program. I hope I have helped you see through this shallow attempt at getting his own television program, airing at 8 PM, 9 PM central time on Comedy Central this June. You aren't fooling anyone, Charlie Sheen. Not I, and certainly not AMERICA. Please vote Pro. Do it for America.
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

I would like to state that I did not propose that my opponent needs to learn any of the lessons offered by Jersey Shore. I simply stated that such lessons can be found in the show. Seeing as my opponent is still able to live and function, I feel I can safely claim that such abilities are not granted through the watching of South Park Therefore, he should save the time spent watching South Park for more important things to his survival, such as eating, drinking, resting and knocking out 7 gram rocks and finishing them. That last activity only applies if my opponent is indeed Charlie Sheen. Not that I'm saying he is Charlie Sheen. I'm only saying that he may or may not be a Vatican warlock assassin with what may be tiger's blood in him.
I should stop watching the TV show "south park"

Alright, on the points he made, 1. I do not need to see jersey shore, as I have no need for tanning creme, I'm whitter than a ghost. Also, he purposes that I need to be smart, but that I need to know how to make an extremely stupid nickname. If I ever wanted that, I'd call myself the biffster, and my name is't biff 2. Alright, I could watch 10 midgets beat up micheal vick, OR I could watch cartman devor vagisil and join nascar http://www.southparkstudios.com... Alright, he claims that we are smarter than the average south park user, but, what if my health and intelligence comes from watching south park. And, you cannot lose intelligence, except by killing brain cells. and you cannot kill brain cells while watching a computer screen.
Indian women no longer captive of tradition

"Indian women no longer captive of tradition" I shall be arguing for the affirmation in two relatively independent ways: 1) Indian women living in America are far from captives of tradition 2) The Indian government has been taking steps to remove traditions that previously had enslaved Indians According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, an Indian is 1 a: a native or inhabitant of India or of the East Indies b: a person of Indian descent 2 a: american indian b: one of the native languages of American Indians. Exemplified in definition 1B, yet consistent with the rest of the definitions, an "Indian" women need not live in India. To be considered "Indian," one must merely fulfill ancestral requirements. Following this reasoning, it is evident that Indian women residing in America are not captive of tradition; in fact, they are given rights to protect themselves against many traditions. Even with women residing in India, there are still vast changes from traditional ways. For example, according to Times Magazine, India has recently passed a bill preventing men from domestically abusing women [1]. It is apparent that women are no longer slaves to Indian traditions; they have been given some of the same rights that Westerner's have. I am curious as to the nature of my opponent's sources for his extreme claims. For example, contradicting what my opponent has said, Muniruddin Qureshi's book, Social Status of Indian Women [2], shows that "The liberal egalitarian legacy of the Indian National Movement had, in turn, led to the Constitution of free India granting a position of equality to women by way of political rights." Evidently, women are *not* captive to the ways of the past; their social status has changed. I would also like to note that my opponent's spelling and grammar is far below par, so that category should gain a Pro vote. In conclusion, as both of my two separate contentions prove, Indian women are no longer captives of tradition. My opponent provides a few questionable examples that do not undoubtedly prove his point. As such, please vote Pro. Thank you Sources: 1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... 2) http://books.google.com...
Indian women no longer captive of tradition

Indian woman , however educated and economically independent,are still in shackles of society's traditions. somewhere she herself is not able to free herself ,somewhere others are overpowering her. still every husband feels happy finding his wife wearing bangles&putting bindis or keeping fast on KARVA CHAUTH .No husband ever tried to follow her .Every husband wants to put his wife behind the closed doors and enjoy his life like a free bird . He avoids taking any responsibility and wants to enjoy all the happy outcomes. TAKE THE EXAMPLE of pub hangama at Manglore ,only man has right to do as he wishes Girl has to accept a boy because her father cannot afford a big dowry . If a boy is educated he becomes an asset for parents while a girl ,however educated ,talented,beautiful she is not. after marriage what to say of her own status ,her family member's are not allowed to have any relation with the girl. then she cannot take major decisions about economical matters, family planning etc. She is forced to go for foeticide
The website "Debate. Org" has serious problems that must be addressed.

Here is proof. . . . When I try to access ths debate, My own debate. . . I get this Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, Had its name changed, Or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested URL: /debates/The-website-Debate. Org-has-serious-problems-that-must-be-addressed. /2/
Chocolate Chip cookies are better than Raisin Oatmeal

Any way you look at it, raisins are much more nutritional that chocolate, and is something to make you feel GOOD about eating a cookie. Not only are raisins and other dried fruit delicious, they are packed with outstanding health benefits (1). Oats being a whole grain, are also proven to reduce risk of diabetes and help with digestion. (2) #1 https://www.organicfacts.net... #2 http://wholegrainscouncil.org... Thank you for reading, and i hope next time you go to eat a chocolate chip cookie, you may think twice, and instead reach for an oatmeal raisin.
I think little brothers are easier on parents than big brothers in general

You still have not proven that this is what you think. But, I will address the issue at hand. You claim that since older brothers have to learn from their parents, then this means that they are harder on their parents. This is wrong in many ways, for one, what about older sisters? Many families have a girl born first, my family for example. I have two older sisters, that I learned from. The second thing wrong with your statement is the assumption that little brothers don't have to learn from their parents. If my little brother asked me what his social security number was, I would not know. He would have to learn it from my mother. Also, what about twins? Sometime two brothers are born a few minutes apart. The younger brother will be just as much of a burden as his older brother. Another thing is, usually older brothers are smarter and stronger than their younger brothers. They are more capable of taking care of themselves and others around them, while the younger brother must ask the parent for help. The Older brother can mow the lawn and wash the car for the parent, while the younger cannot. Though, you still have the Burden of Proof. You must prove that you actually think that little brothers are easier on parents than older brothers. Even you admit that Asia might not exist. It is called 'Solipsism. ' Nothing but your own mind can be proved or disproved. I look forward to your response, young Jerry. Sources: (1). . http://tinyurl.com...