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

1. Homwework is benificialHomework is a obvious benifit to the entire learning process. Homework is almost the equivalent of studying. The more you practice something the more you remember. Students are not excited about homework because they are bombarded with other options that seem far more exciting? Let’s face it - homework is no more exciting today than when we were kids. It was tough for us to do our homework and we did not have nearly as many distractions as today’s students. Their world includes instant communication, muti-tasking, cell phones, exciting video games, texting and social-networking. Homework is competing for your child’s attention against some tough competition. Some students think homework is a waste of time. Others understand the intrinsic value of homework and take responsibility for doing it correctly and handing it in on time. However, the majority of students are somewhere in between these extremes. The students that do their homework without a nightly battle view their education differently. They understand that for a couple of hours school work is the priority and then they can do something else. They understand that homework teaches them where their strengths are and where they need to spend more attention. For most students the problem may not be the homework, but in how they look at it. In the “good old days” we did our homework because it was expected and because there were far fewer options for our time. 10 Benefits of Homework Homework teaches students about time management. Homework teaches students how to setting priorities. Homework helps teachers determine how well the lessons are being understood by their students. Homework teaches students how to problem solve. Homework gives students another opportunity to review the class material. Homework gives parents a chance to see what is being learned in school. Homework teaches students that they may have to do things - even when they don’t want to. Homework teaches students how to take responsibility for their part in the educational process. Homework teaches students how to work independently. Homework teaches students the importance of planning, staying organized and taking action. School and homework teach students important life lessons that they will use as an adult. For example: It teaches them how to read and comprehend information, communicate ideas with others, listen and take notes, remember things, solve problems, how to develop a plan, set priorities and take action. Homework also teaches students how to concentrate, write reports, spend time alone and helps develop their curiosity about new subject Let me also point out that if we ban homework then we will be detrimenting the learning pocess and will let asians coninue to get ahead of us.
Homework should be banned...FOREVER

Structure of this debate1- acceptance2-posistions3-rebuttals4-summary/rebuttalsI believe it is imperitive to define the key terms in this resolution so i will do such.Ban- : to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>Homework- : an assignment given to a student to be completed outside the regular class period. : preparatory reading or research.Forever-for a limitless time.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Homework should be banned...FOREVER

Hi i think homework should be banned forever. i just joined so go easy on me, okay? homework should be banned because it is so hard and wastes time. i play video games, but only a little because of homework. homework ruines my life.literally. also it wastes presious time for eating and playing. homework sucks!!!!!!!! it is so dumb. i mean why homework when we have school? even though i skip classes, they are super dumb. homework sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A creator/creators probably exists

Since you've challenged me to this, I'll accept. I'd like to add detail to your definitions:1) First, your proposition says "creator/creators", and your first round definitions only define "God", which as far as I understand, is a specific idea of a creator. You will have a much easier time if you stick to the idea of a creator or creators in the general sense, since P(A) >= P(A&B) for any A /= B, and the concept of God involves additional properties than just the concept of a creator. 2) "Probably" would be more accurately defined as "more probable than any competing explanation", but since this debate began with us disagreeing that the probability of a god is 50%, and because we're discussing a binary outcome, it seems appropritae for us to say that "probably" means "more than 50% probability". "Probability" is the quantifiable measure of likeliness. Therefore, your BoP is to show that you can measure the probability of the existence of a creator is greater than 50%, or 0.5. 3) Finally, I would recommend that you extend your definition of "Exists" say "having objective presence in reality beyond imagination", or something similar. The reason is, if it were simply "not imagined", I have a very easy route to winning based on a semantic argument. I'd rather we close any holes that give me an easy win and have a better debate. Go ahead and make your case. I hope you have the best debate you can and make a very strong case. Since you're taking on the BoP, I will likely not make many, if any, arguments of my own, and simply attempt to thoroughly refute all of your arguments. Cheers.
A creator/creators probably exists

Ok. So probability depends on personal bias? Hmmm. So if I don't don't believe 1+1=2 I can say that the probability of 2 being the correct answer is 0. Lol remind me never to ask you for financial advice. I apologize for my earlier error. To make up for it I'm gonna reduce the probability of factors needed for life to exist by random chance. Instead of 1 in 10^238 lets give random chance a fighting chance. How about 1 in 10^5? that's 10X10X10X10X10 or 1 in 100 000. that's about 20 coin tosses. All have to land on heads. So on the one hand we have life by design. On the other hand we have life by random circumstances. Life by design is 1 in 1 odds. Life by random circumstances has 1 in 100 000 odds. Well even if random circumstances had a 1 in 2 probability that would still make life by design more probably. If life by design is more probable than life by random circumstances then , personal views aside reqarding the existance of god, its more probable that a creator exists than that he doesn't exist. Thanks Con. For a most entertaining debate.
A creator/creators probably exists

What that essay basically says is you can't prove God exists because you need something to happen multiple times to predict its probabilty. Likewise you can't prove God doesn't exist because you need something to happen multiple times to predict its probability. So you can't prove or disprove the existance of God without further information. The odds of either being true are the same. Ie 50/50. If you can't see that then your grasp of how probabilities work needs some work. As this was the point of this debate I rest.
Are Republicans the future of America

A few corrections I would like to make: "Low taxations allows for more job growth, because that way the businesses are stripped by the government of their money." I meant to say "because that way the businesses aren't stripped by the government of their money." So I apologize.Now rebuttals and additional arguments:Small government only produces deficits in a first world nation and small government cannot provide for societal needs of its many citizens. A small federal government is ideal. Each state has their own governments. Why not let the states take care of issues relating to the people?Con1- Because if we rely on 50 states with 50 set of rules then you do not have a cohesive nation. This is why we have greater poverty and poorer schools in the South because those states do not have the revenues to support the people and they rely on the more prosperous states for financial help. We need a unified nation in order to have a unified people.You can not have a small government in a highly technological, industrialized nation. Low taxation only brings about huge deficits as we have seen since Reagan cut taxes from 71% down to 34 to 36% . You are merely espousing supply side economics which has been discredited by most economists. Reaganomics has been a blight on this country and has caused many of the ills that we now have.Except in many of those cases, you're talking about the latter half of his administration. Reagan's effects were well into the beginning of the term. It's only when the Democrats took control of the Senate, that problems started to arise. All the good ideas Reagan had were most of the time vetoed by the Democratic Senate, starting in 1986 for about a decade. Same with Bush Sr.Con 1-You are not addressing supply side economics and skipping into side issues. Deal with supply side and the huge reduction of taxes under Reagan which even today is promoted by the Republican Party. and please list what good ideas did Reagan have?Small governments allow prosperity. Government regulation does no good whatsover.Con 1- You have said that. No need to repeat yourself unless of course you have run out of ideas.
Are Republicans the future of America

A few corrections I would like to make: "Low taxations allows for more job growth, because that way the businesses are stripped by the government of their money." I meant to say "because that way the businesses aren't stripped by the government of their money." So I apologize.Now rebuttals and additional arguments:Small government only produces deficits in a first world nation and small government cannot provide for societal needs of its many citizens. A small federal government is ideal. Each state has their own governments. Why not let the states take care of issues relating to the people?You can not have a small government in a highly technological, industrialized nation. Low taxation only brings about huge deficits as we have seen since Reagan cut taxes from 71% down to 34 to 36% . You are merely espousing supply side economics which has been discredited by most economists. Reaganomics has been a blight on this country and has caused many of the ills that we now have.Except in many of those cases, you're talking about the latter half of his administration. Reagan's effects were well into the beginning of the term. It's only when the Democrats took control of the Senate, that problems started to arise. All the good ideas Reagan had were most of the time vetoed by the Democratic Senate, starting in 1986 for about a decade. Same with Bush Sr.Small governments allow prosperity. Government regulation does no good whatsover.
Are Republicans the future of America

Small government only produces deficits in a first world nation and small government cannot provide for societal needs of its many citizens. You can not have a small government in a highly technological, industrialized nation. Low taxation only brings about huge deficits as we have seen since Reagan cut taxes from 71% down to 34 to 36% . You are merely espousing supply side economics which has been discredited by most economists. Reaganomics has been a blight on this country and has caused many of the ills that we now have.
Are Republicans the future of America

The Republicans stand for small government, low taxation and hyper militarism. Those 3 attributes do not make for good governmenatal policies that will benefit the nation. With the change in demographics changing and 2020 census the Republican Party will become marginalized The Republicans stand for small government, low taxation and hyper militarism. Those 3 attributes do not make for good governmenatal policies that will benefit the nation. With the change in demographics changing and 2020 census the Republican Party will become marginalized
Are Republicans the future of America

Con1- Because if we rely on 50 states with 50 set of rules then you do not have a cohesive nation. This is why we have greater poverty and poorer schools in the South because those states do not have the revenues to support the people and they rely on the more prosperous states for financial help. We need a unified nation in order to have a unified people. Who cares about a cohesive nation? Why try to force others to adopt the ways of Washington. This sounds eerilie like one of those doctrines wanting everything under control of the state, like amongst the British, and other major empires. Depends on the finacial help of the more prosperous states? . http://www.areadevelopment.com...http://blogs.edweek.org...Citizens of those so-called propserous states are moving south and out west. High taxes cause jobs to go away. Con 1-You are not addressing supply side economics and skipping into side issues. Deal with supply side and the huge reduction of taxes under Reagan which even today is promoted by the Republican Party. and please list what good ideas did Reagan have? Reductions of taxes allowes for businesses to have money to provide jobs for workers seeking work. When you tax them it drains from the companies giving jobs. It reduces their power. Taxes are no good. I've already proven why Republicans are better for the country.
You should follow stoic principles.

I'm advocating that you should follow stoic principles; chiefly, the principles of apathy which is the basis of all stoic philosophy: one should neither suffer pain nor pleasure. The reason why stoics advocate this is because they believe humans incorrectly assume that pleasure is good and pain is to be avoided; instead of actually determining what pleasures are good, they bypass the issue by simply saying that you should not be a victim of them. For the stoics the possibility of being a victim is neutralized by learning to control only what you can control, and leaving anything else aside; so for many, it seems to be that one cannot control one's pleasures--rather, for the stoics, they do grant that one will be pleasured, and possibly without one's consent, but it is the case that one can avoid this, and be apathetic by not placing any value in said pleasure. Thus, my argument is claiming one can bypass suffering (apathy) by not investing oneself in either pleasure or pain.
You should follow stoic principles.

Well, I wouldn't say that these are two different arguments. It seems that this debate hinges on whether or not moderation is the solution to the troubles of the human experience. The stoics would advocate that it, indeed, isn't, since it is one thing to simply moderate oneself, but quite another, one much more divine and godly, to actually avoid the possibility of evening needing to satiate oneself. This is part of why the stoics advocate that one ought to consider life as a choice, and death as nothing to be feared, since if both of these believes are instilled, even starvation no longer becomes a problem, and thus moderation doesn't seem to be necessary to solve any ills. As Epictetus once said, if thirsty, one ought to walk around all day, nearest to one's most parched thirst, and then continue on, because this will prepare one for when one has no possibility of moderation, since nothing, at all, is available to moderate.
You should follow stoic principles.

The chief objection is well understood: why would pleasure or pain be bad? For the stoics, the answer to this is as follows: it's not so much that these states aren't valued because, epistemically, knowledge-wise, they aren't valuable--it is simply that ethically these states produce awful character: pain avoiders lack courage, pleasure seekers enslave themselves to objects. So, while you may learn from these states, for stoics the real learning comes when these states do not have any reverberation with oneself, and this is only achieved by making reason primary to any other human virtues. The second objection claims the necessity of desire. The stoics differ on this, in a sense, since they do realize youneed to eat, but they think any type of motivation ought to only be indulged sparingly, so as to never be tied to it. Thus, the problem really comes about by being excessive.
You should follow stoic principles.

I don't agree with this for a number of reasons. Why is pleasure and pain given a negative association? Both of these elements help people to learn and grow. If we make a choice in the past, which we come to regret, we can make our future decisions based off this unpleasant experience. Desire is a necessary emotion every species needs to thrive. Take, for instance, our sex drive. Sex, naturally, is a motivation for all animals. In order for all animals to reproduce, there must be some initiate to do so. The same goes for eating, sleeping, and all other instinctive drives.
Too much of cricket is dangerous for India

Nearly, 90% of Indians think CRICKET is dangerous for India. But I don't think so. They think our national sports Hockey is being overshadowed by Cricket. But I want to say, there is no national sports in India. So, we are free to choose any sports. Cricket also promotes employment to many people, not just cricket players, but also many staffs. So, I don't think Cricket is dangerous for India. What do you say about this?
Bible contradictions and inconsistencies thus making the bible unreadable and god is a fraud

Well, apparently you are in need of a dictionary, because an inconsistency is a contradiction. Now, are we going to debate as adults or are you looking for someone to pat you on the back and tell you how smart you are for finding fake contradictions? Oh, and here's the definition of inconsistency according to Oxford English Dictionary:1. "The fact or state of being inconsistent." Now, here's the definition of a contradiction (same dictionary):1.1 "A situation in which inconsistent elements are present."so you can see how I might have mixed up the words considering ONE OF THE WORDS IS IN THE DEFINITION OF THE OTHER.Also, you can appeal to authority all you please, but that did not dismiss my souce as being invalid. You said you got "one sentence into" my link. Perhaps that is why you are discreditng it. If you got further than one sentence you would see how every apparent "contradiction" you've addressed is really not a contradiction at all.Oh, and I would consider myself pretty educated considering I just recently graduated with a Bachelors degree in Communication Studies. I also took various theology courses, some psychology courses, and other courses. So please don't appeal to such childish responses. That way you will not look bad when you are proven wrong.
Bible contradictions and inconsistencies thus making the bible unreadable and god is a fraud

Since you have given me 10,000 characters of contradictions, I obviously cannot answer them all in one response. So I shall respond with a link that cover all of them. If you feel like reading all of the link, then more power to you. However, like I said, this is the best I can do given that you have chosen to give me an impossible task. I have responded with a single link directly showing how each of the contradictions you've mentioned are NOT contradictions.http://www.genesispark.com...simply use the ctrl+f method to find your contradiction in the incredibly massive post to see how it is not a contradiction.Like I said, I would have done this myself, but you literally took 10,000 characters to post your contradictions, so I cannot respond to them all without doing something like this :)
Bible contradictions and inconsistencies thus making the bible unreadable and god is a fraud

Thank you for a waste of time. My opponent seems to have no idea what informal logic is. He also seems to be unaware that in communication theory we call his type of communication style volatile because the way he communicates is demeaning and belittling to people. It's because of insultful, spiteful people like him that the group think mentality exists and people kill themselves. I hope this miserable excuse of a human being learns that being a cyber bully actually causes people to kill themselves.I have said my piece in this "debate" (since I wasn't really debating anything due to my opponent being nothing but a pretentious airhead) and I await the voting results.
Bible contradictions and inconsistencies thus making the bible unreadable and god is a fraud

You still have not referenced any of the real content of my source link, indicating that you would rather incessantly insult me like a middle schooler rather than read something that contradicts your blatant misunderstandings of Scripture. I do not want to engage in an insult-a-thon as I would win. Apparently the only insults you are capable of are those of intelligence. I have still posted the same link with the same disproofs against your "inconsistencies" and "contradictions." You also have conveniently chosen to ignore how I pointed out that the two words you seem to have squabbled over being "different" are indeed necessary counterparts of each other and mean the same thing. I think one of us is having difficulty processing things they disagree with, and it isn't me.When you would like to have a real debate over the nature of Scripture then I shall be ready to proceed. But until then, just posting a bunch of out of context references to a sentence from one area of the Bible and a sentence in another area of the Bible does not prove there is a contradiction. I could do the same thing with your "answers" to my rebuttals.Here's an example:Round 2 sentence 5: ALL are Inconsistencies.Round 2 sentence 3: Apparently Not.Another example:Round 2 Sentence 7: And then you made the truly miserable attempt to bring in that everything stated was a CONTRADICTION.Round 4 sentence 5: You never had anything to say in the first place.So because I found a couple sentences that were totally contradictory (and this is only out of about 40 total sentences that you wrote), I guess I can say that you are unreadable and a fraud. Since that is apparently the logic you are living by in your posts. So it's kind of impossible to debate someone who is unreadable and full of inconsistencies and contradictions...Once again, I shall give you the link that covers all of the inconsistencies and contradictions that you have addressed, so far as I can tell... It will show you just how they are not contradictions or inconsistencies.http://www.genesispark.com...
Bible contradictions and inconsistencies thus making the bible unreadable and god is a fraud

Yes this debate is pointless to a pointless person like yourself who cannot follow simpleton goo goo gaa gaa rules for this debate and obviously needs to be burped between meals. So don't tell me I don't want to debate. That one is on your cheapened flowery head because you still obviously don't know how to read. And that's entirely your problem. You never had anything to say in the first place. What are you talking about?
Drone Aerospace Law

I am one of the rarest breed of anarchist you will ever meet. I adore spying.I believe the optimal world is one where all spy on all and thus all are informed of all.It's simple as that really.You may not like your neighbour spying on you only because everyone else can't see the pervert doing it. It's that you are not able to spy back on the one using the drone and scream to the world that he (or she) is the pervert that they are that you feel so violated.If we could spy on NSA the way they do us, if we had the ability to assess internatl government affairs as they have to assess ours, what a fair and just world we'd have.