BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should Students be given homework during the weekends

As it appears my opponent has forfeited this round. Her profile says that she was last online three days ago. She made her account three days ago as well. Anything interesting about that? My theory is that she went home on a Friday and was bummed about receiving homework for the weekend. She wanted to share this with the world and at last discovered DDO. She thought this is my chance to rebel against school, for my voice to be heard! And yet it seems as if she gave up. Didn't bother to check back up on the debate. You've got to be committed for things like these though. Sure it's just the internet but how do you think your opponent feels and more importantly the people who want to vote on this matter with your intake in mind. Now they've got to wait forever unless you log on sometime soon. I think it's going to take a while for her to get back on, to get committed folks. You know what? I bet that's how she feels about her homework too. She gets a lot of it, it's too much, too boring. Well what about you who is going to be the next generation to fix America's problems? Can't you put up with a little work for a happier lifestyle in the end? What if your parents said we're not going to work for the rest of our lives. That would mean little or no education for you, little or no food, shelter, phone, etc, for you! Sorry if I'm going at it too hard but common people go through more difficult things in life. I could go on for years telling you those things but, no offense, I'm bumbling you in this competition. So instead I'm going to help you with your problem. This is your entire first argument: there is a 5 working days rule. Students already study 5 days a week leaving only 2 days for breaks and family time. As a student myself I find it really ridiculous when my teachers give me homework over the weekends. Where is the time for bonding with my family and friends? End. First off you say that students study five days a week. You don't say that you receive homework during that time. Bond with your family and friends after school on those days. There you go, I solved you problem. If you do have homework on those days get them done first thing you get home, at school, lunch time, and or on the bus. Two words, time management. Thank you.
should Students be given homework during the weekends

Students should be given homework during the weekends. Your not the only one that dislikes it. Practically everyone does. A lot of teachers will give it to you over weekend breaks, so that you have more time to think about your work . Taking that kind of time can let you review your work and ultimately receive a better class grade. Your teacher's mainly give it to you though so that you'll be prepared. I don't know what grade you're in, but being given a little push can prepare you for the your next school whether it be middle school, high school, or college. When you get to the next school and the next standardized tests at those schools, they won't be so difficult because you'll have been training on that work constantly and will be used to getting a larger amount of work even on the weekend. If you're not in it already, trust me, high school won't always be so pretty for you. Life has it's downfalls, but as humans we persevere through the difficult times. As for making bonding time for your family and friends, you've got to make it yourself. Get all your weekend homework done as soon as possible and organize things in advanced. Trust me time management also won't be so kind to you, the older you get. At my middle school we had more homework than most other schools. I was placed in the magnet program there and it wasn't always easy. You just have to work with it though, because in the end you'll probably realizes that it wasn't that much work, and laugh upon it. As Bob Marley said," Every little thing is gunna be all right." And as Jimmy Eat World said," It just takes some time, little girl you're in the middle of the ride, everything, everything will be just fine, everything, everything, will be alright, alright." To conclude, students should be given homework during the weekends.
Genetic differences explain racial IQ gaps

For anyone else interested, comment here (. http://www.debate.org...)Rules:- Pro and Con will avoid debating the merits of IQ as a metric, or race as a classification system. While these are certainly debatable, being largely seperate and rather nuanced subjects, they would be best suited to their own debates. Note that, as a result, race will not be defined for the purposes of the debate. Given that virtually all data on the subject relies on self-identification, there should be no need for it either. - BOP is initially shared but can be debated/shifted- No new points should be brought up beyond Round 3- No forfeits- No kritiks- My opponent will not attempt to define "race" for the purposes of the debate- All sources must be provided in-text of the debate- Keep it civil- Violation of the rules merits a lossStances:- Pro will argue that racial IQ gaps are owed to genetic differences between racial groups. At least to a significant degree. - Con will argue that the racial IQ gaps are not owed to genetic differences between racial groups. Either in the absolute, or to any non-negligible extentFormat:Round 1 = AcceptanceRound 2 = Opening argumentsRound 3 = Response to opponents' opening argumentsRound 4 = Defense of own opening arguments, closing statements
The Biblical God and the God of the Qu'ran are not the same!

We both have the BOP , I will have to prove that the God of the Quran is the same God who sent prophets Moses and Jesus and revealed to them Torah (OT) and the Gospel (NT), obviously I would have to show that Jesus- peace be upon him- is not the God of the bible, but his "Father" the one who sent him forth, is both the God of the bible and the God of the Qur'an. Beside Qur'an and the Bible, I may use the authentic prophetic tradition (if necessary) for Hadith is inseparable part of islamic scriptures. I now send it back to Pro to start his argument.
The Biblical God and the God of the Qu'ran are not the same!

We will be debating whether or not the God of the Bible is the same God of the Qu'ran. Anyone who accepts this without permission will automatically forfeit the debate. Since this is the first round, it should only be used for acceptance. I think I will establish some rules, definitions, and round structure. If Fruitytree has any issues on rules, definitions, and structure, I have set, then she may post in the comment section to determine the changes and then Fruitytree may add those changes in her first round or I will change my structure here. The Biblical God and the God of the Qu'ran are not the same! The resolution may seem difficult because one mite say that the Bible has different Testaments and that the New is not the same as the Old. My contention is that Jesus Christ is in fact the same God of the Old and New Testament and I will attempt to establish this in my opening argument. I will now set the rules. 1. Only the Qu'ran and KJV Bible are to be used. Original texts from both are valid. 2. There is to be no semantics used on wording. Only the proper use(ordinary) of each word is to be allowed. Interpretations of the message in each book are allowed.3. No insulting each other or their religion. Only addressing the debate topic at hand should be discussed. Definitions 1. Biblical God- God of the Old and New Testament Bible of the Christian religion.2. Islamic God- God of the Qu'ran and Muslim religion.3. Same- Identical; not different in anyway; unchanged.4. Not- Definitely different. Round structure1. Acceptance2. Opening arguments. Con can simply rebuttal.3. New arguments and rebuttals.4. Closing remarks and rebuttals. No new arguments introduced. I hope my opponent accepts these terms and I look forward to a good debate. Again Fruitytree, if you want to discuss problems about this structure please post in comment section. Thank you and good luck.
agnostic/deist vs christian/catholic debunking creationism on biblical text.

I am truly baffled by how to respond to this. Absolutely every single point I brought up has been dropped. This is an easy vote, my opponent brought up no points, that I haven't already covered in my previous round, he has offered no rebuttals. He basically concedes the debate by refusing to engage in it. Clear win for me, please vote appropriately.
agnostic/deist vs christian/catholic debunking creationism on biblical text.

I am so sorry forgive me. College can be a bit of a pain. I just want to that this was very good. But in the end your argument needs to be convincing and concrete. Yes you need to make it logical but saying "For example the Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible (as far as I can tell). So, it is possibly true." Wow just wow. Ok so the flying spaghetti monster is possible? Since when? Something that you must realize is that your god is the most logical and at the same time most illogical idea ever. It is truly logically impossible that a flying spaghetti monster exists. Anyway God as you call him or Lord almighty creator of heaven and earth...well lets see he is supposed to love all right? He gives free will right? He knows all right? He slaughtered every human being on earth because they did not worship him anymore or that they disobeyed him right? Well that was their free will and he killed them all. Why? Because they did not worship a man in the clouds. Also if he knows all then he knows all that we will do in our lives right? Then thats not free will. And don't try to explain god because you apparently can't explain god for anything. Because he is god and you can't possibly comprehend the thoughts and decisions of god.
agnostic/deist vs christian/catholic debunking creationism on biblical text.

Thank you for accepting my debate so quickly As of now if god speaks through you I will say good luck to you and god Creationsim if I'm correct is the biblical account that God created the universe and everything before it and after it. (I was a former christian) I understand that you believe he is the alpha and omega who acts on the physical is not physical, but at the same time is omniscient and all powerful. The word for word definition of creationism is "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." And to be clear this is an evolution vs creationism debate but evolution is not the act of the creation of the universe via and explosion of space and time. It is the scientific evidence and truth that the human conscience along with what is the physical human structure evolved through a series of events and adaptions from a much smaller population of species. We are in a sense mammals that have been proven to evolve from monkeys and such and we split paths because we developed a higher sense of meaning and intelligence for our physical and mental being. You might say something like 1. If we were not created by god then how did the first organism begin to develop And my answer to that is "I don't know." but what I can say is I don't think that being created mature and my wife being created from a rib be anymore logical than saying under the right conditions life can be formed from a single celled idiot to a thriving race of humans. Also answer this If we were created by god then how come we have the story of cain and able- cain killing able (I think thats how you spell his name) than further being banished to the world where he probably stumbles upon a town out of nowhere. And don't say that Adam and Eve had more babies because that wouldn't make sense either. And I'm sure you can figure out why. That wraps up my first argument. Good luck to you and your god
agnostic/deist vs christian/catholic debunking creationism on biblical text.

in this debate I will prove creationism is flat out bull. first round is acceptance. if you quote a verse cite it do the same with websites. wikipedia is an invalid source . my opponent will state that he or she is christian catholic and/or a creationist for round one round 2-4 is an open debate rebuttals, statements and all no trolling...
Direct Democracy is inherently better and more fair than any other democracy based government.

1. You say that most people are uneducated in politics. The solution to this is that the goverment gives the people the information they need about politics so that the uneducated masses can get educated.2.In countries such as Australia and the United States,people can't vote for their leaders and have to invest their trust into senators/electors that sometimes put bad people into office. (*cough cough* Donald trump and Tony Abbot.) With direct democracy,the people can choose their leaders without the expsense of unelected electors secretly ruling the country,You put your trust in a republicican nation,when in fact,its just like any other sytsem. No one ideology is perfect. A ideology is destened to at least have one flaw,wethter it be major or minor. The point is,a republic has just the amount of flaws a democracy does. Nothing is 100% perfect.
Direct Democracy is inherently better and more fair than any other democracy based government.

The good things you mention are in reality the flaws of a direct democracy. 1. You have anyone making laws for a nation that everyone in that nation has to follow. This is just not a good idea as most people are uneducated on politics, and what works best. 2. Ill Admit that it does boost voter turn out, but this leads to another issue. See number one. 3. Again you put too much trust into the uneducated masses who often act on emotion and ignorance. While yes in a republic you do have to put your trust in someone to represent you that representative also protects you from the tyranny of the majority. 4. You count on the government being trustworthy. Direct Democracies just like other forms of government can have untrustworthy officials. You might think that my whole argument is based off not trusting the population, and you would be mostly right. Why place your trust in millions of people to all do the right thing when you can trust only one to a thousand people to do the right thing. The odds are in favor of republics, and other forms of governments. Republics also provide security for the minorities of a nation. Say a white majority nation voted that blacks should give them 50% of their income. It would be the will of the people, and cant be ignored. I understand constitutions are a thing, but what is stopping the majority from voting to abolish one? And if they are denied that what is stopping the majority from rebelling. People fail to understand that. With most other systems if they turn tyrannical you have the minority oppressing the majority, and rebellion is significantly easier than with a direct democracy. Where if the people turn tyrannical you have the majority oppressing the minority. To sum it up in a direct democracy you are placing a lot of trust in people who have no business running a government to run a government all while expecting minorities to stand by and follow the will of the majority.
Direct Democracy is inherently better and more fair than any other democracy based government.

Direct Democracy can be good for a lot of things. For example...1.The people get to write and vote on laws,rather than a republic where represententives make the laws. This means,in a direct democracy,anybody can12s have a chance to vote and create a law and hold daily national refrendum. 2.Direct democracy would help encourage voter turnout as more and more people have a chance to vote in laws. Moreover,the people would know that they would make a difference in voting,thus increasing voter turnout even more.3. In a republic,the people would have to make a risk to trust a politican. Direct democracy would insure more trust towards a politican and is less risky political system.4.The goverment would have to provide information to the people so that they could understand the law. This builds more trsutworthiness in the goverment.
Direct Democracy is inherently better and more fair than any other democracy based government.

This is the definition of direct democracy I am using, "Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly." My argument is that direct democracy is inferior, and not morally superior to a representative democracy, or a republic. Everyone knows that incompetent leaders are a danger to any form of government. But direct democracies tend to breed them. Ill point to the example Socrates lays out in Book 6 of The Republic. Who would you rather have run a ship someone qualified with an understanding of how the ship works and what is needed to keep it afloat or just any random person? This is the major flaw with direct democracy. When you have just any Tom, Dick, or Harry choosing how a government runs you are bound to come across issues that a government ran by qualified people would seldom face. I must bring up a major issue with direct democracies is that they can be easily manipulated by legitimate, and illegitimate means. An example of a legitimate way to manipulate a direct democracy is by using a Demagogue. A demagogue can turn a direct democracy on its head. A demagogue is someone who appeals to the masses through their ignorance, prejudice, and their emotions. They are incredibly effective at derailing a direct democracy as men like Adolf Hitler, and Cleon of Athens has shown us. An illegitimate means of manipulating a direct democracy is vote fraud. While any government can face voter fraud direct democracies are especially vulnerable to it. A notable scenario would be if someone rigged the popular vote in an American election most likely nothing major would happen, but if someone was to rig a vote in a direct democracy the people's will would be undermined thus defeating the purpose of a direct democracy. In conclusion, the fact that direct democracies often rely upon the will of unqualified individuals to make decisions a whole nation will be affected by, and its vulnerability to corruption make it an inferior system to say a representative democracy or a republic. http://classics.mit.edu...
Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

You have been brainwashed probably from tv, public schools, in internet where many ignorant people proclaim themselves to be wise and qualified to lead you. Are you aware that our calendar is based on the life of Jesus Christ and the reason He gained such an honor was the miracles he was reknowned for? Only modern mumbo jumbo combined with concerted efforts to lead you to serve a system of lies telling you that you are your own God is able to blur history to the point that you can't tell the difference between the truth and lie You don't know who you are talking about (God the Son, the Son of God) so of course you agree with the ignoramouses who love the pleasures of their sin and pride against God all the way to death and hell fire and they take pleasure in your holding to the same doomed mindse. You will see Jesus Chrsit and you will say willingly or against your will that He is LORD. God createed you for Himself and He will not be denied the honor of his creatures even if it must be in eternal torments of the penalty that is on your sin, the fire of hell. I am threating you with nothing, I'm warning you of the danger you are in. Saying you don't believe it will not be an excuse, saying you didn't have enough evidence won't be an excuse. You are willfully rejecting your own salvation. You don't know whare you are going I guess, but I know where I am going and by your own words I know where you are going and it's not good as you stand now on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. It won't hold long, enjoy while you can if you think it's worth it. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

I accept. By making opening statements in Round 1 while establishing a rule that forbids me from making opening statemts in round 1, you have violated your own rule. Your Round 1 opening statements are !) Biblical Creationism is false, 2) it has effectively no scientific backing, 3) it has multiple contradictions, and 4) is not found in the Bible. That's 4 statements in violation of your rule against me posting a debate argument for round 1. While I think it would be fair for mt to not waste a round and put up rebuttals to these 4 statements, I will honor your rule and let you expound in round two on the opening statements you made in Round 1. I will not discuss any further about whether or not you have been unfair in making an opening arguements in round 1 and adding a rule you would claim I violated if I did the same.
The Sermon on the Mount is Bad Advice

why is it absurd to criminalize things that are outside of our control? thought is something that is not inherently out of our control given we controour brains, but is only effectively out of our control. bannign something that is inherently out of our control might be viewed as problematic. but here is it at least in theory possible to control your thoughts. if you decide to go crazy cause you cant control them, that is more on you. all the other points by con involve him taking the text and Jesus further than is reasonable. ive already touched on the points, so there's no point repeating them.
The Sermon on the Mount is Bad Advice

CON’s comments in the last round have intrigued me; but if she feels she has sufficiently made her point, that is her business. I will simply offer a few closing thoughts and then await the same from CON. Thought Crime CON is suggesting that that our inability to control our thoughts highlights the fact that we are not perfect. While I don’t necessarily disagree with this, it is irrelevant to the point that Jesus has criminalized this uncontrollable behavior. CON has not even addressed the absurdity of criminalizing a behavior that is outside of our control. Interpretation It seems that CON’s main argument is that I am taking the words of Jesus to an unnecessary extreme. As I have pointed out, I am simply discussing the actual words on the page; CON has offered no reasoning as to why we should use her interpretation. Therefore, this whole argument falls flat and my points stand. Good vs. Bad (Final Thoughts) The only good bit in the Sermon on the Mount that CON has brought up is her claim that the beatitudes offer a message of hope. I feel I have adequately shown how the beatitudes are not good, but in fact, dangerous to society. There are a few good bits in the sermon that were not brought up in this debate, such as the advice in 5:23 to reconcile your differences, and in 5:33-37 to speak plainly and honestly. However, not only is this advice not revolutionary or special in any way, it is overshadowed by Jesus’ criminalization of uncontrollable thoughts and advice to not plan for the future, as well as the other points I bought up (and others, seriously, just go read the thing). I would like to thank CON for this debate. Like most debates I propose, I did so in order to organize my own thoughts on the matter, and regardless of what anyone else thinks of the debate, I have accomplished that goal. I will now leave the floor to CON for her final round comments.
The Sermon on the Mount is Bad Advice

on the thoughts point. even if passing thoughts are what's wrong, all that can do is highlight that we are not perfect. it should make us humble etc. if you go nuts because your inability to be perfect, that is more your problem than something wrong with the teaching itself. all the other points by con involve him taking the text and Jesus further than is reasonable. ive already touched on the points, so there's no point repeating them.