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

"Students can have a day to review the topics seen in school before the exam with help of worksheets. House is not the correct place to work"One day to revise over past subjects before an exam is a stupid idea. You're essentially saying that students shouldn't revise and study in their own time, they should only work at school. That's not how life works, unfortunately - if you want a good grade then you need to be putting in the extra hours at home."There is a story of a girl called Anna. She usually takes a break of just 30 minutes and finishes her homework at 10:30pm. Anna's mother affirms that her daughter's initiative of learning is reducing, principally because of homework. As you can see, Anna's social and familiar time is restricted with homework."This debate is about banning homework, not reducing the amount of it. Of course the amount of homework students get needs to be lessened - I'm not refuting that. But banning homework altogether is a ridiculous notion."and have once per week to stay doing homework until 1am"See my above point."Also, a psicologist says that 90% the students who speak with her, are suffering from grading stress because of homework."Source?I'll continue with my closing statement as the rest of my opponent's argument is based on speculation, uncited sources and repetitions.My opponent seems to be focusing their argument on the stress which homework brings to students, and how it restricts the social lives of students. I do not disagree with this. The sheer amount of homework some schools set their students is unbelievable and is a serious issue with the education system which needs to be addressed by the government.However, this is not what the debate is about. The debate is about banning homework completely, not simply reducing the quantity.Homework and studing out of school has been proven time and time again to benefit students greatly. Students who reguarly study outside of lessons achieve better results in tests and exams. (source: http://www.sedl.org...)Banning homework is a nice dream made up by students who can't be arsed to do any extra work outside of school. Reduce the quanitity, but removing it completely is moronic.
Homework should be banned

Thank you, good luck, here are my arguments: Homework should be banned. I believe this because international comparison of order students have found that homework has not any relation with tests, this means that students don't make a better job in tests with help of homework, so I believe that homework is a waste of time, it is not really achieving is objective which is making students to learn. Also after school, students should rest or do other activities instated of doing homework. Students should not have their brain closed only in studying, they need also to have social life and make activities and this is restricted with homework. Homework also causes stress and make students to cancel social plans and/or reduce their sleep hours. Studies have shown that many students find homework as a boring and tired activity and also, have a want of not going more to the school. With homework, there are many possibilities of students cheating, I believe teachers should make all the activities in class ,because if they are not watching what students are doing, students can call someone to give him/her the answers of the homework or search with the Internet and like this, he/she is not really learning. Also, sometime times shy students that don't ask questions in class, don't understand the lesson and will find homework very difficult to realize. Many children will like to join to a club or another extra-activity and this will stress them more, just because they have homework, this social activities are also very good, so children should not get stressed about joining to them. In conclusion, I think students have the right of learning, but they also have the right of doing social activities and resting and both, have to be combined, with homework the right of resting and doing social plans is limited, so homework should be banned!!
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

The universe had a beginning. About 14 billion years ago an entire universe exploded out of nowhere. Everything in the entire universe including space and time just suddenly appeared and then rapidly expanded in all directions. Before this there was nothing. No space. No time. No matter. Nothing. Such an event must have had a cause and because space and time was the result the cause of the Big Bang has to exist outside of space and time. This is what we call God. "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time). The laws of the universe are balanced on a knife-edge. Any slight variation and we wouldn't exist. Almost as if some sort of Grand Architect designed it for us. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project said that you can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell." (The Language of God). This is the code of all life. Three billion characters of code inside every one of your cells. "A live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night." Francis Collins (The Language of God). To believe that this code just randomly put itself together without the guidance of an intelligent designer is impossible. Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 10 to the 40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10 to the 80), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed "The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." (Evolution From Space). He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" (The Intelligent Universe) In all of this and more you see the hand of God guiding his children toward their destiny. You can see the beauty of God in the Sistine Chapel. You can hear his voice in the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. He lives in the transcendent. He lives in the love between two people. He is what gives us consciousness and free will. He imbues us with empathy and remorse and instills in us our moral values. The Christian God exists and rules over the universe.
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

My opponent must be a Christian that believes in every word of the bible. They must construct one strong evidence-based argument that proves the existence of their god. If my opponent or I disagree with one another (which we most likely will) we must post a refute/defence. I will not post any points as to why being an atheist is best as we do not have the burden of proof. If my opponent agrees with me I win, if I agree with them they win, if we disagree the voters are suggested to look for any violations of my rules and/or see if his argument holds up to my refutes. Terms All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the Oxford Dictionary. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP is shared 10. The first round is for acceptance only 11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure R1. my rules, your argument R2. my refute, your defence R3. my summary and refute, your summary and defence
God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

I would like to start out by saying that my opponent has done more of explaining evolution to me than providing evidence. -The Nested Hierarchy- The evolutionary tree is flawed, and those such as Darwin Himself saw it and doubted his theory because of it. The flaw is in the Cambrian Explosion. At first, there is creatures with a low amount of cells, the suddenly, a huge jump to organisms like trilobites. This happens throughout the tree, though not as dramatically as in the Cambrian Explosion. Also, I am not sure if you know this yet, but wikipedia is not a very reliable source, as this quote that I am about to show you is from a quote from well known scientist named Colin Paterson, who wrote a book called evolution once said, when asked why he did not include facts about transitional fossils, '"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?" -Other demonstrations- Just because we do not yet know the purpose of certain organs, does not make them vestigial. Organs such as kidneys can be removed without the loss of life, but they are not considered vestigial. You brought up giraffes, though giraffes are evolution's worst nightmare. This is because the giraffe has so many systems that are so perfect, that many scientists admit that the giraffe shows traces of intelligent design. -Mutations, Natural selection and Evolution- Once again, this is improbable. As you said, evolution works by random mutations. But how can random mutations change a creature? Saying that one cell changed into a human through random mutations is ridiculous. I am looking forward to reading your rebuttal, as I would like my questions answered.
God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

There seems to be a little bit of a difference between the opponents debate topic, and his opening statement. My interpretation of his opening arguments is that the theory of evolution is flawed, that many of the origin theories, such as abiogenesis, and the Big bang theory cannot be used to explain the origins of the cosmos, and that a personal God (not necessarily Christian) is real either as a result of this or for separate reasons that he has not outlined. If my opponent feels this is an unfair representation of the debate, I would like to invite him to clarify in the comments. I will not conduct lawyering over the misuse of the term "Evolution" to include the big bang theory/Abiogensis, but would invite my opponent to try and use appropriate terminology where possible. As my opponent outlined what his arguments would be ahead of the first post, I feel its only fair for me to do the same: What I intend to show in my arguments are as follows: - That evolution is a well supported, well evidenced theory, with no fundamental flaws as my opponent suggests. - That the big bang theory and to a lesser extent abiogenesis, while incomplete provides an explanation of the origin of the universe, with the deeper atheistic philosophical questions concerning the origins of the universe being neither illogical, nor incoherent in this respect. - I also plan to show that a personal God is a less rational answer to the universal question of origins. Obviously, these are subject to change, depending on the arguments of my opponents.
God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

I would like to start out by saying that I would like to debate against someone who KNOWS their stuff. I don't want those who just say that evolution is right because it happened, like I have been seeing on many debates similar to this topic. My first point is going to be the various flaws in the theory, such as the millions of transitional fossils that we are missing. This is a huge flaw in the theory that many over-look as, "A minor flaw". This destroys any argument of "Fossil evidence", because we have not found any of these transitional fossils! Where have they gone?!?!?! Next, I would like to tell my opponent, whoever it may be, that genetics does not prove the theory of evolution, it contradicts it. The genetic code is so complex, there is no way that it could have just somehow originated. Please explain to me how it came to be. Lastly, I would like to point out another contradiction in this theory. The lack of an explanation to what happened before the big bang. Science states that something can't come from nothing, and please don't say that how did God come to be, because i'm not trying to prove religion with science. God was always there, and the laws of science do not apply to Him. But, if the big bang were to be true, then what came before it? If you say many particles came together, then were did they come from? (And so on and so on.)
As Long as Explicit Songs Exist, So Will Bullying.

All my opponent is doing is trying to rephrase the resolution because he didn't read it properly. He is still under the illusion that I'm arguing that explicit songs are the direct cause of bullying.My resolution is, "As long as explicit songs exist, so will bullying."This literally means that bullying will exist as long as or longer than explicit songs, but my opponent wishes to argue the "implications" or "subtext" of the resolution, which I was never arguing.I'll repeat it one more time: I am not arguing that explicit songs are the only direct cause of bullying, and I never was.Contention OneI understand that children can be bullied on other basis, but I'm not refering to any of those. As long as children listen to Kidz Bop, they can be bullied for it. Kidz Bop will exist as long explicit songs do, Therefore as long as explicit songs exist, kids will be bullied."So this shows that explicit songs are not the only cause of bullying, and if it were to stop, bullying would still happen."And thus Con proves my point. Not only will bullying exist as long as explicit songs exist, it will exist for even longer.Con Concedes Contention Two I'm not going to continue this debate if Con doesn't start arguing the resolution I presented.
As Long as Explicit Songs Exist, So Will Bullying.

From the title of the debate, it infers that if explicit songs were to end bullying would end. as you are pro, meaning you agree with the statement, you would either agree with my above sentence, or should have rephrased the topic as i am con, i would disagree with the statement, and would say even if explicit songs were wiped out, bullying would still occur. this talks about segregation, which has many forms of bullying in it. http://voices.yahoo.com... since you maid a reference to rap here is when it first started: http://www.askdeb.com... now there is over 100 years between when these both started. To your point about kids getting bullied because they listen to KidzBop and are weird because of it. Kids get bullied for many other things besides the music they listen to. Such as clothes, physical level, weight, height, the family they come from. So this shows that explicit songs are not the only cause of bullying, and if it were to stop, bullying would still happen.
As Long as Explicit Songs Exist, So Will Bullying.

Contention One"first off your argument is only based off what you think, not actually studies or real evidence."A. Not all arguments necessarily have to provide evidence. My argument is based on logic, and a logic-based argument requires no citation.B. Even if this argument did require evidence, my opponent didn't provide any either. In fact, he didn't offer a contradiction to my contention at all. Thus, the resolution remains intact.Rebuttal One"history shows that even if there was a complete wipe out of explicit songs, there would still be bullying."Au contraire. My opponent is confused by what the resolution actually says. I never claimed that "Explicit songs are the only cause of bullying", I simply said "As long as explicit songs exist, bullying will exist also."Which brings me to add,Contention Two Bullying will always exist. "Kids don't wake up one day and physically say to themselves "I think I'll make Joey's life miserable to the point he kills himself because I hate his guts." Kids do what they do and sometimes that happens to be something someone finds mean. We don't communicate with each other; we expect people to know things by the looks we give them. You see that crap in relationships. If no one tells the "bully" what they are doing is hurtful and "bully-ish" then they will never know and will continue to do it. Often it is a case of them believing it is benignly funny, not realizing it actually isn't."He goes on to say,"yes, bullying is a problem. But legislating it away is never going to solve the issue. As long as children are around each other, there will be bullies. There always have been and there always will be." Since the lifespan of bullying is infinite and the lifespan of explicit song is either infinite or finite, Bullying will exist at least as long as explicit songs exist.
As Long as Explicit Songs Exist, So Will Bullying.

This idea debate was sparked after finding that Kidz Bop made a version of Thrift Shop by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. While the sheer awfulness of the song made me wreak havoc in my undergarments, it also helped me realize some-Infallible Logic:P1. A few explicit songs will always be popular.P2. If popular explicit songs exist, Kidz Bop will make a version of at least one of them. P3. If Kidz Bop makes a version of it, an annoying soccer mom will make their kid listen to it instead of the original.P4. If their kid listens to it instead, they will be socially deprived compared to their friends.P5. If they're socially deprived, they are weird by Elementary School standards.P6. If they're weird, they will be bullied.C: As long as explicit songs exist, kids will be bullied.
The Universe Has Always Existed

The evidence I have for the universe having always existed is that it doesn't make sense for the universe have been created. It doesn't make sense that the universe just came into existence from nothing. How would that be possible? How can something be created from nothing? It seems physically and perhaps even logically impossible. It seems to be a naive idea. If the universe just came about from nothing, I don't see why it would be impossible for other things, such as people and toothbrushes, to just come about from nothing in our everyday lives today. The idea the universe was created doesn't seem consistent. It seems like something a medieval alchemist would claim or a fairy tale would involve. It seems too fictitious. Furthermore, years are measured by the time it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. Neither the earth nor the sun supposedly were around about 13.8 billion years ago, so the standard by which years are measured seems to be taken out of context.
The Universe Has Always Existed

The truth is that we don't know how old the universe is and as you point out the science isn't conclusive. However, your disbelif seems to be based on even less evidence and sounds like pure specuation. When you say "It seems there had to be something happening 20 billion years ago", what exactly do you mean and how did you come to this conclusion and what evidence do you have for this?I agree that the Creation story is not a good one, not least because it is really more about religion than science. And if you agree to rely on science then you need to explain how you come to such a conclusion - you appear to infer there that were a time before the Big Bag but then you leap all the way to the title of the OP that the Universe has always existed! I don't think you have spuported that either so please explain.
The Universe Has Always Existed

The universe has always existed. It doesn't make sense that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So what happened 20 billion years ago? It seems there had to be something happening 20 billion years ago, despite that being before the Big Bang. A quick look at the observational evidence for the Big Bang on Wikipedia, located at https://en.wikipedia.org..., reveals that the evidence for the Big Bang is complicated, hard to understand, and abstract. For those reasons, I am not convinced by that evidence. It seems everything should be able to be understood in intuitive terms, terms that don't take a lifetime dedicated to physics to understand. This reminds me of the problem of the possibility of unperceived existence. If unperceived existence is not possible, and I don't perceive the truth of the Big Bang from its supposed evidence, then the Big Bang is not possible and thus did not occur. The claim the universe was created does not add up.
The Universe Has Always Existed

Hmm, still sounds like personal credulity is at play here - and still no real evidence. Your argument is no more convincing than a theists creation story - it basically boils down to personal credulity. I'm not offering my alternatives - this is a debate and not a discussion. I believe I have adequately shown that your position is untenable, at least in the sense of a scientific theory, or even one based on evidence. You argument is wholly about your personal mind and what it currently knows or understands. I conclude that you have not demonstrated the topic of the universe having always exist and submit that all you are offering is a personal opinion; and not scientific nor evidence based nor detailed.
The Universe Has Always Existed

I did previously mention the problem of the possibility of unperceived existence. If I don't perceive the truth of a proposition, it's possible: the truth of the proposition doesn't exist and thus it seems the proposition is not true. If I don't perceive the truth of the creation of the universe, it's possible: the truth of the creation of the universe doesn't exist and thus it seems the universe was not created. You haven't addressed all my questions and concerns. How would it be possible for the universe to just come into existence from nothing? How can something be created from nothing? If something can be created from nothing, perhaps even the truth of the proposition "the universe has always existed" can be created from the falsity of the proposition. The universe may be infinite in space. https://www.universetoday.com..., visited Jul. 17, 2017. So it may be infinite in time.