BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That we should have more homework

Thank you for the debate. I believe children should have more homework.==My Stance==We should be giving more homework than we currently are. However, too much homework is worse than no homework. ==Rebuttals==My opponent argues that too much homework=not enough exercise. This is a straw man argument. My opponent has not brought up his case and the fact that there is a wonderful class called "Gym." ==PRO's case==I believe that homework is very important for children and for teenagers alike. I am a public school studen and I know for a fact that I (I cannot speak for everyone) do not have a ton of homework as my opponent wants it to seem. In fact, I hardly have any.What Child Development Research Shows Researchers have found that children do have a unique brain strucutre that will determine how they are able to solve problems. Scientist Jean Piaget found that children must be able to add new knowledge to old knowledge. This acts kind of like a building block. Homework is a good way to do this. Corrolation between homework and test scoresIn addition, we also know that homework does improve test scores and performances. A set of three studies compared the following three factors: (1) Homework v. No homework; (2) How much homework is given; and (3) Homework v. In-class assignments that resemble homework. The study, of course, favoured the homework. VOTE PRO! ===References===http://www.eduguide.org...; Penn State (2007, March 2). Benefits Of More Homework Vary Across Nations, Grades. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com...
To withdraw troops from japan

As Pro points out, people in Okinawa have been suffering from the noises of airplane flying over their houses every day and the crimes commited by the U.S.soldiers. They have been expecting the relocation of the military bases to the other places in Japan toward the Japanese and the U.S. governments. However, Japanese people must keep in mind that China has the hatred feelings toward Japan. The reason is that Japan has not apologized for the wrongdoings done by the Japanese military forces during World War Second. Therfore, the present tension surrounding Senkaku islands might develop into the war between China and Japan. Japan needs urgently the U.S. military forces to protect the country from being destroyed by China. Japanese people and Government leaders must recognize that Japan has not its own military forces. Thank you for reading my arguments.
To withdraw troops from japan

I agree that Japan needs our troops to deal with their neighboring countries, but the japanese residents aren't happy with our troops staying there. U.S. troops are taking over 20 percent of the land in the air base in Okinawa. Okinawa is a urban city, and having the Futenma air base there can creating tensions between the American Marines and the Japanese residents. The Americans commited acts of sexual crimes and many cases where there were drunk marines. (1) Aircraft accidents can be detrimental because many people will be hurt if it happens in an urban cities. These problems occur becuase of how densely populated Okinawa. 1.3 million people living with 27,000 U.S. troops. In an densely populated place like this, noise can be a problem. (2) Studies show that infants are negatively affected by noise pollution. They are born with impaired hearing and abnormal behavior.(1)http://www.wsws.org...(2) http://www.jcp.or.jp...
To withdraw troops from japan

I believe that the U.S.military troops should not withdraw from Japan. As news media report, anti-Japan movements have been taking place in many cities in China recently. The main cause is that the Japanese government has bought the Senkaku islands. The important thing is that Japanese government has not paid much attention to the claims of Chinese government which has been appealing the right of ownership of the islands for a long time. These situation might trigger military conflicts between the two countries in the near future. Therefore, the U.S. military forces should not withdraw from Japan to protect the country from being attacked by mighty Chinese troops. The U.S. -Japan security agreement must highly evaluated. The destiny of Japan depends too much on the American troops stationed in the country. Their existence can menace the country which has highly sophisticated weapons. I look forward to reading Pro`s arguments in Round 2. Good luck.
Is Kayne West a god

One song? And which song would that be? Black Skinhead? Power? Stronger? All his work is amazing. And as a response to your weak excuse for an argument, we are debating whether Kanye West is a God. Not a rap god like your pre-pubescent homosexual love, who pleads that he is "Not Afraid". I bet you like him with no hair, because it reminds you of having sex with helpless, little children. You are a sick human being, but i digress. Referring back to my original point, we are debating whether Kanye West is infact, a God. No comparison needs to be made to other people (Eminem) no matter how sexual appealing they are. Stick to the debate and stop straying off topic you illiterate, child abusing, rapist.
Is Kayne West a god

Clearly you are not the most intelligent of sorts. Kanye West is in fact, a God. He has lived amongst us for hundred of years without us even realizing. But you obviously would not know a single thing about our lord and saviour, since you are probably some random weakling from Idaho, obsessed with Halo and progressively wanking over ever single teaser trailer for the new Star Wars movie. You aren't even worth debating with, and i am questioning why I even accepted this debate in the first place. Your mother pleaded with me to accept after last night. You know, a favour for a favour? Am i right? Ah you wouldn't understand, you're a grown man with the mind of an infant. You're pathetic. I hope the rest of your life is as much of a waste of time as i spent typing this. Catcha cunny.
Single-sex school are better than co-educational school

I am looking forward to it, let's have fun! Just now, my dear opponent has highlighted that my first point in first round is a PRO argument since single-sex schools break down gender stereotypes . In here, I would like to argue that this point is invalid because they can cooperate with each other with their strength. Under the situation that boys will feel shy to learn art since this subject is female dominated, instead of feeling shy, I believe that boys can learn more under this pressure. From a quote, "Pressure makes diamonds. " by General George S. Patton. We can see that boys can get a better performance in arts when they are under the pressure of girls. Girls can teach them with their strength in art. Boys can also learn to be better by observing them. My opponents also mention that," It should not be a surprise that boys and girls are different, and as such, this effects the way each learn. " I would like to argue that it is inappropriate. Co-educational schools offer a diverse curriculum that is available to all students, emphasizing gender-linked stereotypes related to coursework. Therefore, it encourage all children to explore a broad range of learning opportunities. It also provide opportunities for girls and boys to interact together meaningfully as they learn. Boys and girls learn to respect one another and cooperate as equals. Response to your third argument,"Many parents wish their students to be in a single-sex environment for the purpose of avoiding distractions by the opposite sex. " I believe that motions such as love don"t have to be distractions. For many young people, wanting to impress others can actually motivate them to work harder than usual. The intention of wanted to attract others can be the force to push them to be more hardworking. Their grades improve, and they might even grab the attention of that special someone. To conclude, since the arguments of the PRO side is invalid. Therefore, this motion must not stand.
Single-sex school are better than co-educational school

Hello, I am the opposing side of this debate. Today's motion is," Single-sex school are better than co-educational school." I disagree with this statement. I am going to state three reasons to support my stance. To begin, I would like to divine this staement. Single-sex school only have one gender's student while co-ed school have both gender. Firstly, coed schools offer a diverse curriculum that is available to all students, deemphasizing gender-linked stereotypes related to coursework. Coed schools encourage all children to explore a broad range of learning opportunities. Also it provides opportunities for girls and boys to interact together meaningfully as they learn. Boys and girls learn to respect one another and cooperate as equals. Overall, co-education school gives student a bigger space for exploration. Secondly, co-ed schools can boost students" confidence when they are facing their opposite genders. Their confidence of facing different genders can be trained as they interact. Since in co-educational school, boys and girls usually interact with one another, after they get used to it, they will not feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. As such, this system of study helps both the boys and girls enhance their confidence. Besides, co-educational schools can train teenagers" discipline when they are facing their opposite genders. Comparing the behaviors of students in single-sex school and co-educational school, we can see that most of the students in co-educational school behave better than single-sex school. Girls behave more elegantly in front of boys and boys usually remain gentler. This is because they both want to leave the opposite sex a good impression. Teachers may grab this chance to let good behaviors draw into their habit and to let them get used to it when they facing the opposite genders in the future. Thirdly, boys and girls can help one another with their special strengths when they study together. Usually, boys are good at sports, mathematics and science while girls are good at learning language,literature,music and arts. Telling people what they should be good at could potentially enhance their interest in something that they can have talent and potential for success in. For thousands of years, people have known that the best way to understand a concept is to explain it to someone else. "While we teach, we learn," said the Roman philosopher Seneca. This also results in improving of their academic results. Therefore, we have always said that girls and boys benefit from the very wide range of subjects to be found in mixed schools and they gain from the increased level of personal freedom in choosing subjects.For both girls and boys, co-education provides a more realistic way of training young person to take their places natural. It helps provides an excellent foundation for the development of realistic, meaningful and lasting relationships in later life. Based on the aforementioned arguments, our team believes that today"s motion must not stand. Thank you!
children these days are spoiled brats

I will now begin my final attack, defense, and closing statements. "Today children have endless wants and we as parents[sic] are quick to fulfill them due to their unconditional love for them. " There are several errors in this line of thinking. First, as mentioned before, that is not unique to this current generation. Second, Pro did not provide any evidence to support this claim. "[Children] have. .. [a] polite image which they maintain in front of their parents and. .. [a] loud obnoxious image which derives from always having what they want. " I extend my previous claims. And again, this is a hasty generalization. Clearly not all children act this way. " [My resolution] was referring to children of the 21st century. I may have included the fact that in past generations there were spoiled kids as well but that was not my main point. " Again, Pro has failed to explain why they aren't simply experience juvenoia. There has been zero evidence to support the idea that modern-day children are somehow more spoiled. Let's recap: -Pro makes the claim that children in the 21st century are more spoiled than in previous generations. Con refutes this claim with evidence to support the contrary, and Pro leaves it uncontested. -Pro then goes on a tangent to try and explain how technology is poorly affecting children's abilities to think creatively and imagine, which has nothing to do with the resolution. -Con's claim that children of previous generations were, in fact, worse-behaved than today's children goes uncontested. -Virtually all of Pro's reasonings are anecdotal. A conclusion here is pretty easy to see: There is no reason to support the resolution.
children these days are spoiled brats

I will now commence mine as well. "...does not suggest technology makes children more 'spoiled'." Today children have endless wants and we as parents are quick to fulfill them due to their unconditional love for them. You see, children are two sided. They have their obedient and polite image which they maintain in front of their parents and they have their loud obnoxious image which derives from always having what they want. "You seem to be implying that *all* children these days, or a large majority, are spoiled, which is a *hasty When I said that I was referring to most children as opposed to all children. Indeed if we look back to the resolution "children these days are spoiled brats" I was referring to children of the 21st century. I may have included the fact that in past generations there were spoiled kids as well but that was not my main point.
children these days are spoiled brats

I will now begin my rebuttal. ". .. it is common knowledge that the excessive use of mobile devices can greatly impact the mind and values of a developing child. " The quote you attributed to this idea, as well as the HP article itself, does not suggest technology makes children more "spoiled". Therefore, it is irrelevant to this debate. "spoiled" - a person, usually a child, who is rude and behaves badly because they have always been given what they want and allowed to do what they want. Your quote is talking about technology's negative effect on children's creativity and development, and does not talk about them being more spoiled because of it. "My point was that in every generation some children were spoiled more than others. " I don't think that's necessarily true. Let's refer back to the resolution: "children these days are spoiled brats". You seem to be implying that *all* children these days, or a large majority, are spoiled, which is a hasty generalization. Or you are suggesting children "these days" are more spoiled than children of previous generations, which I've already shown in my R1 post to be a case of juvenoia and that has not been refuted. Pro has failed to sufficiently prove why children in this specific generation are more "spoiled". Either way, the resolution is simply not true.
children these days are spoiled brats

My opponent here is accusing me of displaying a form of "faulty logic" yet it is common knowledge that the excessive use of mobile devices can greatly impact the mind and values of a developing child. "Children now rely on technology for the majority of their play, grossly limiting challenges to their creativity and imaginations, as well as limiting necessary challenges to their bodies to achieve optimal sensory and motor development. " (The Huffing ton Post) " As I mentioned, this viewpoint has been made for generations, and you can easily replace "electronic device" with whatever your parents' generation played with as children. A stick and a hoop? [4]" In my opponent's first anecdotal critique he/she states that in every generation there was a group of kids with whatever was the latest toy or gadget of that time. I don't disagree, in fact I couldn't agree more yet my point was not that. My point was that in every generation some children were spoiled more than others. Children of the past couldn't fathom owning smart phones and tablets because there were no cell phones and tablets. Refer back to my "stick and hoop" argument. Again, my argument was not solely based on electronic devices, it was based on the latest toy or game of that generation. "P. S. I am a "she" not a "he". " I fail to see how this contributes to your argument. I included this because in former writing mentioning me you referred to me as a male when in reality I am a female. I apologize for any misunderstandings. Sources: . https://www.psychologytoday.com... . https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
children these days are spoiled brats

I'm not sure why there is a 2,000 character limit, but I will try to be consise as possible in my argument. My opponent is displaying a form of faulty logic known as "juvenoia," the misguided belief that today's children are somehow less well-behaved or more trouble-causing than previous generations of children [1]. Despite this not being a new concept [2] (juvenoia has been around as long as modern human civilization), evidence would actually support the contrary, and actually suggests today's generation of children are actually more well-behaved than their parents' generation 20-30 years ago [3]. "Look around. Nearly every child whose age ranges from 6 to 18 has some form of electronic device in their hands. I'm sure most of them didn't have to raise of finger to get these devices. " This is anecdotal, and Pro failed to provide any evidence to support it. As I mentioned, this viewpoint has been made for generations, and you can easily replace "electronic device" with whatever your parents' generation played with as children. A stick and a hoop? [4] "Children of the past could not even fathom having such devices in their possession until they were self-sufficient and living on their own. .. " Children of the past couldn't fathom owning smart phones and tablets because there were no cell phones and tablets. Refer back to my "stick and hoop" argument. "P. S. I am a "she" not a "he". " I fail to see how this contributes to your argument. Sources: [1] . http://time.com... [2] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] . http://www.independent.co.uk... [4] . https://sfloveaffair.files.wordpress.com...
children these days are spoiled brats

I believe that children these days are spoiled brats. Look around. Nearly every child whose age ranges from 6 to 18 has some form of electronic device in their hands. I'm sure most of them didn't have to raise of finger to get these devices. They merely asked their parents for one and got it, some sooner than other but they got it. Children of the past could not even fathom having such devices in their possession until they were self-sufficient and living on their own yet today 2nd graders have mobile phones and tablets. P.S. I am a "she" not a "he".
The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Appologiese for taking so long!In round 2 my opponent writes: "Any contradiction in the Bible automatically proves the Bible false." I find this to be a blatantly unsupported assertion? Is there any other historical document in which this axiom would be applied? One can point at several contradictions in historical accounts of just about any event and find contradictions. For example, take the accounts of the JFK assassination. One gunman? Two? Lee Harvey Oswald? Unknown shooter? Died immediately? Died at hospital? Died on the way to the hospital? There are many contradictions, yet we still acknowledge the historical fact that JFK was assassinated.I should have made myself more clear. Any contradiction proves the Bible is not the Word of God because that would mean that God broke his promise about preserving his word, thus making the Biblical promises invalid.Furthermore, in the opening contention of this debate I stated that a contradiction must pose a significant threat to an essential Christian doctrine. I quote "A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine." As per the terms of this debate, my opponent accepted this condition when accepting the debate. "By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above." Therefore, my opponent cannot simply assert this claim and MUST prove how any given contradiction fulfills this criteria. Any contradiction would pose a significant threat! How? That would mean that God did not preserve his word as he said he would do!Out of time and will make further rebuttals in the next round. Appologiese to my opponent. I've been busy. Vacation, admin training and final exams!
The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Hello, ReformedArsenal, I am excited to be debating with you again. I accept your definitions, terms, and structure. As the resolution contends, I will stay with the New Testament (NT for now on) and not go into the Old Testament.My opponent wishes to give me a max of 5 contradictions. Well, to find contradictions, one needs to look no further than the four gospel.Contradiction 1: Should the disciples take staffs? 1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take. 2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a staff. Contradiction 2: How did Judas die?Matthew 27:5 A. He hanged himself"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."-Matthew 27:5B. He fell headlong and his bowles gushed out.Acts 1:18"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."Contradiction 3: Is Jesus God?A. YesJOH 8:58, Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am JOH 10:30, I and my Father are one. COL 2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. PHILI 2:5-6, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: B. NoJOH 14:28, Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater thanIn fact, Jesus could NOT be God. Jesus is talking to Nicodemous and states that, "God is a spirit, he that worships God must worship him in spirit and in truth." With that, I offer this syllogismP1) God is a SpiritP2) Jesus was NOT a spiritC) Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.P1 is defended by Jesus' own wordsP2 is just logical. C is law of syllogism.I have many more contradictions, but will save them for later. I ask my opponent since I only posted 3/5 contradictions that I will be allowed 2 more without droping a contradiction. I thank my opponent for allowing me to debate with him.==Sources==infidels.orgskepticsannotatedbible.com1001biblecontradictions.comBack to you! I'm looking forward to hearing your answer.