BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contender chooses topic

Let me just state that I have not watched any of the episodes, however, I will try to debate to the best of my ability. First off, I'm going to change the topic a bit, if it's ok with Pro, since I am obviously at a disadvantage since I have not watched the show. We are going to debate if Gravity Falls is the (or one of the) best show ever, not just a "cool show" since that is too vague. I'm going to start off by addressing some reviews from big review sites IMBd: 8.9/10 Metacritic Critics: about 70/100 Metacritic Users: 9/10 Ok, I'll admit it, these are pretty big scores. However, these scores are not the best I've seen, let me address some shows that have higher scores. Metacritic: Rectify, season 2: 92/100 and 9.1/10 Avatar, The legend of Korra, season 3: 9.4/10 Person of Interest, season 4: 9.2/10 IMBd: Game of Thrones: 9.5/10 Breaking Bad: 9.5/10 Planet Earth: 9.5/10 Cosmos, a Space Time Odyssey: 9.4/10 The World At War: 9.4/10 And there are lots more. This means that Gravity falls isn't the BEST show ever, it is simply good. Your turn, Pro.
An extra half an hour of school in exchange for no homework would be better

I understand your point and return to one of mine that I think may be a key issue. Like I said some careers entitle sacrificing your time outside of work to finish a project or papers, and that's the one thing that Homework teaches you at a very young age, the responsibility of sacrifing time and putting effort into something to better your future. I mean I actually never did homework as a kid, never like too, so I can see where the extra half-hour would be beneficial, but I've also grown up alot to see what the schools were really trying to teach. So to take away that factor of homework is slowly taking away from a preparing a kid for the future, which I'm not for sure about the UK but in the US, is a major issue, kids are lacking the discipline as it is, to take away more of the responsibility would be a bigger setback then you realise.
An extra half an hour of school in exchange for no homework would be better

I am not saying that the child should be assisted in the homework, but just the extra half an hour to do the homework. They have more resources at the school and if they dont understand they have others to talk to (friends etc). You seem to talk a lot about responsibility, there are a lot more chances for responsibility. Food tech, looking after school pets, revision etc. Not all schools have study halls either. Study halls in the UK are actually very uncommon, and the extra half an hour would be very helpful. Even if the extra half an hour was only three days a week.
An extra half an hour of school in exchange for no homework would be better

I will accept this argument Basically what you are saying is a child should be assisted in his homework rather then sent home with it to do on his own. I disagree because sending a child home with homework teaches them responsibility. If we were to do this then children will slowly learn to rely on teachers rather then themselves, which is bad enough since children are becomming less responsible and more ignorant. So no I don't believe we should change the school time frame so kids can go home without homework and probably jump right into video games or facebook. Also putting more responsibility on the teachers and less onto the parents isn't right, Parents should be responsible enough to take interest in their kids education, not put it off for the teachers. I agree that kids need more help but Homework isn't just to increase their intellect, it's to help them to learn responsibilities outside a facility, plus not to mention certian careers and jobs require work to be brought home, which is what HOMEwork is trying to teach kids, to sacrifice time and pleasure so they can better their future. Plus schools provide a class known as Study Hall, where students are given time to work on any homework they have in the confines of the school itself, remember there are only three electives needed throughout school, Math, English, and History, and Jr High and High school usually gives you seven classes, so there's four spare classes to mix and choose, I would suggest if you want to work more on helping kids learn, then make study hall one of their basic classes, don't put an extra half-hour on the school time-frame to do the same thing that Study Halls during school.
An extra half an hour of school in exchange for no homework would be better

Why should the government be interested in whether a school or teacher gives homework to their students or not? The answer is equality "When it comes to homework, the President said it should be done during school hours rather than at home, in order to establish equal opportunities." Mr Peillon the education minister argues "We want a society of justice so we want to have schools that offer everyone the same chance of success" That means accompanying pupils in their personal work rather than abandoning them to their private resources." This means providing half an hour at the end of the day in which to do homework while at school rather than relying on the willingness, and ability, of parents to help. There may however be questions about whether such a proposal will really be possible to implement as written homework was unsuccessfully banned back in 1956. Although there would be the con of more school, it would be much more organised for child, therefore giving them time to relax, revise, meet with their friends and go to more after school activities.
The "Big Bang" Theory, is more plausible than the Christian "God"

Pro stated, “By the way, I am not atheist, I am a Deist.”Deist: “The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws.”http://dictionary.reference.com...Deist and Christians are both monotheistic-based believing in the same God. Christians believe God intervenes after creation, where Deist believe God does not intervene after creation. Both Deist and Christians agree that God created the universe; and from the latest scientific knowledge, God created the universe via the "Big Bang." Since this debate is about creation of the universe (“The Big Bang Theory”) and since Deist and Christians believe in the same God, then beliefs after creation are irrelevant to this debate. I think this debate is over.
The "Big Bang" Theory, is more plausible than the Christian "God"

Yes, "Big Bang" is not a solid point of belief, but nor is a higher being, in this case specifically, the Christian God. Also, the "7 Days Of Creation" is not a bible story, it is an summary to explain how god created all we see today, land, water, plants, life, stars, space, everything, thus it is not classified as a "story". Also, we cannot claim that Science is simply a way to read the Laws of Nature, Laws of Nature is a common ground for life, and is identified by Science. Thus, if the Big Bang Theory, is true, than the laws of nature have thus been created by the Big Bang Theory, since it was the beginning of literally everything. Con States "Therefore, the "Big Bang" theory is plausible via the scientific method reading the handwriting of God. It cannot be more plausible than God" But can't it? Science has been proven time and time again, while religion has not, and while we are at this point, proving religion would use...Science? correct? This is beside the point, the point of the debate is to argue which is more plausible, that of God, or that of The "Big Bang" Theory. With this said, scientists have found a few solid points of evidence to prove that the universe does have a Epi-point, that the universe is ever expanding, that galaxies are moving farther away, that space is cooling down, all these are points of evidence that the big bang theory exists, all of these are solid points of evidence, while religion is still a big what if, there is no proof of a god, there is no proof that god created the heavens and the earth, or the water that we drink, meat that we eat, or hell, even us ourselves, but science has come forth and provided explanations, solid, real, explanations, for not one or two questions, but millions, about our evolution and what we came from. Religion, as i see it, is false hope, a set of rules for people to follow, something to blame a problem on, something to deny responsibility. So, is faith really as plausible as that of science, that of "the big bang" and all of its evidence. No, it is not. By the way, I am not atheist, I am a Deist
The "Big Bang" Theory, is more plausible than the Christian "God"

I believe in an entity, commonly addressed as God, an event entity that created the universe and everything in it, which includes the “laws of physics” also known as the Laws of Nature. For those of us who believe in God, the Laws of Nature is essentially the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting. For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).On the subject of man's written scriptures about God, the late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religions) once stated (http://www.brainyquote.com...):“Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”Pro stated, “I believe science is the creator of all...”Science is about studying repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature. Science did not create the Laws of Nature, it is a way to come to understand them. http://plato.stanford.edu...http://plato.stanford.edu...Pro stated, “...now i am addressing the "7 days" of which god created all, nothing more.”Pro also stated, “(i dont want to challenge the stories of the Bible, that would take to long).” The “7 days,” is just one of those “stories of the Bible.” On the other hand, according to Albert Einstein, time is relative. Therefore, 13.8 billion years in one timeframe is equal to “7 days” in another (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In summary, using the scientific method to read God's handwriting, there is empirical evidence of a “Big Bang” the event of creation, where the Laws of Nature is God's program in the evolution of both inanimate and animate. Therefore, the “Big Bang” theory is plausible via the scientific method reading the handwriting of God. It cannot be more plausible than God, for those of us of faith, believe God is the event entity of the “Big Bang;” hence, creation. The men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the “Big Bang;” until then, we have faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof, and therefore, the evolution of belief systems will continue.
The "Big Bang" Theory, is more plausible than the Christian "God"

Happy New Year I personally believe that the "Big Bang" Theory (noun, Astronomy 1. a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics.) is more plausible and more solid than that of the Christian God himself, now i am addressing the "7 days" of which god created all, nothing more. I believe science is the creator of all, not god, and i will argue this using the big bang theory. In the following rounds i will disprove the opponents statements with my own drawing from data found in research of the big bang theory. I will let the opponent state first his evidence
I can convince you to register on my website and tell your friends about it

So its simple. I am going to market my website you the way i know how to, by engaging you, the potential customer who does not know a thing about it. I will raise arguments as to why you should be our customer, you will argue against my position. Simply put my business model is an online mall- that is still under construction for African companies (they can register for free and have their own online store), so can individuals. The customer would be anyone with disposable income who imports products from Africa. Second idea tied to that mall is a motivational site similar to Forbes, where we inspire Africans and probably anyone else who believes in what we believe, to create wealth, to be proud of themselves (if they are African- to be proud of being an African) and to live their dreams . Since i am the one trying to convince you i will begin. Firstly since registration on the site is free- there is nothing to lose and more to gain. There is the prospect of the site being useful to you, by signing up for free you put yourself in a position where you can gain a lot more than you can lose. The only real downside that you have is losing time (probably 5 minutes at most). But ask yourself what would you have done with that time- what is the opportunity cost of losing that time. Secondly everyone needs to be motivated- although the site is not yet functional (the motivational one). It is still something that could be beneficial to you. Possible arguments you could have are that there are many other motivational sites so why should you pick mine. Here's one reason- i am here, engaging with you, showing you how much i want to know about you and your thoughts. I want to understand how you reason, how you argue, how to articulate my ideas specifically to you. I am also putting myself in a vulnerable position. I don't know who will accept the argument- if you have already i don't know how good you are at arguing a point, you could walk all over all my arguments and make me look stupid, but i confidence in myself and in everything i believe in
A Science qualification is more useful to society than an Arts qualification

I believe that a science qualification is more useful to society than an arts qualification because simply the obvious. For example you would not be reading this for the great minds who invented the computer and going even further back you wouldn't even be able to use your laptop/computer if electricity wasn't discovered. Science has saved millions of lives and have continued to do so since there for I believe a science qualification is much more useful to society to continue to help young minds grow to become successful and continue the lo line of greatness no matter what field of science they go into.
The Teenage Brain is Physiologically Underdeveloped

Thanks for responding :) I am talking about a larger context here. Like voting rights, drinking age, and age of consent. Image a world where we hand out voting rights to those who solve puzzles and win games the fastest. Sorry I didn't clarify more, but I meant older people are more likely to have experience solving puzzles in general, not that specific puzzle. Do you have any evidence that mature teens brains develop at the same rate as other teens? And if that were the case, wouldn't you have also debunked your own argument because you would have proven that maturity is independent of the brain. You have to provide evidence for what you said that teenagers in developing countries are more reckless. This is not true. Read further into the link I sent you round, the guy goes over it. The idea of adolescents has existed only since the turn of the 19th century. Studies by Margret Mead also suggest this. "The scans show that their brain is not developed and you cannot prove that the brain develops when it needs to." -You This is called neuroplasticity. "Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life." This only came from Wikipedia, but I'm sure a page as important as neuroplacticity would have correct citation. http://en.wikipedia.org... The brain during adolescents prune out what it needs and doesn't need and, if all you do is homework, video games, and debate.com :), then you will not learn risk management properly, until you are put into a situation in which you actually need use it. Even things like driving can help. Just because some other countries are poor doesn't mean that the people there cannot be reckless. You can get drugs in Samoa, you can have unprotected sex in somoa,you can commit suicide in soma, you can have alcohol in Somoa, yet studies have shown tthat these tendencies are not any higher there among teens than adults (Im not trying to use unfair, isolated examples by saying Somoa over and over again, its just that I didnt want to have to type "developing nations which do not have western standardization" four times and Somoa is one of them.) Your final paragraph is irrelevant and could be use to argue things like "Mexicans brains make them violent" because Mexican are statistically more likely to be violent. Such logic was used in scientific racism, sexism, and homophobia many years ago, and still in certain places today. There are many factors which you need to consider here. Things like sleep, nutrition, and poverty drastically affect these issues. Teens are much, much poorer than adults because poorer people much more likely to accidentally have children for a variety of reasons. This obviously could leed many problems for teens. Simply saying that some teens dont look both ways before crossing does not consider confounding variables. Thanks, this has been a great debate. Sorry if I sounded mean or aggravated, I can assure you that if I try not to. :)
The Teenage Brain is Physiologically Underdeveloped

First off, my argument is not that the teenage brain is fully developed and therefore not prone to recklessness. My argument is that the teen brain is not pre-determined to be reckless, meaning that it is the environment, as opposed to some time-related set-in-stone development. I have heard that puzzle-type argument (teenagers took more risks while playing this simple game, therefore they are impulsive) by many respectable psychologists, including my AP Psych teacher, but it simply doesn't make any sense. A) I would expect adults to simply be better at puzzles than teens through experience. B) You also need to know the variance or standard deviation of the two groups, sample size to understand the overlap. C) I don't understand what this has to do with recklessness. I meant more like drunk diving, not losing a puzzle race :) D) The same argument could be used to against elderly people, as well as people with turrets. Here is my main point though: Just because brain scans show that the teenage brain is immature, does not mean that the teenage brain is physiologically pre-determined to be reckless. If teenagers are put into an environment which does not require them to use their pre-frontal cortex until they are in their mid-twenties, which just so happens to be the year most people finish college, then their pre-frontal cortex will not develop until then. No matter what brain scan you show me, no matter how many stats of recklessness you name, you still have not addressed the real issue because teenagers, living in an environment in which they are herded into the same building each day while they have no control over their lives, have no need to develop their pre-frontal cortex, therefore their brain does not develop. Teenagers live simple lives, which calls for an amygdala controlled mind. Teenagers are not rewarded for responsibility because, as a result of this pseudo-psychological fallacy, people deem that they are not mature enough for responsibility, creating a self-fuffiling prophecy. We follow the sociological looking-glass self theory, that we are who others think we are, just like all other humans. This can be seen in other cultures. Why do non-standardized cultures without American TV not have adolescent turmoil if the brain is pre-determined to be reckless? Because people expect them to behave. Go to most countries in the world; they have no concept of adolescents and teens are valued members of society. So, back to my main point, why would you brain teach you to respond rationally,when no matter what you do, no matter how you act you will always be judged as a nuisance? Teenagers' brains have an incredible amount of plasticity, so this theory makes perfect sense. If there is no need, it will not adapt. Please read at least the first three paragraphs and the "Interesting Facts" at the bottom of page two of this pdf. document by Robert Epstein of Harvard University: http://drrobertepstein.com... Thanks :)
The Teenage Brain is Physiologically Underdeveloped

I will begin by saying that every brain is different. An adult can be just as reckless an a teenager, however there are studies that suggest that in teenage years the brain is still developing. This does not mean that every teenager is reckless, but many are. Many teenagers are more prone to be pressured into doing something that they might not necessarily want to do, or that they might not even see as the right thing to do. There are many experiments that prove teenage recklessness. For example an experiment was carried out where individual adults and teenagers had to solve a puzzle. The adults took slightly more time to think about which piece went first and where, they took more time to think but over all made less mistakes and did finish first. The teenagers put pieces together faster but more often than not the snap decisions resulted in them having to take the puzzles apart resulting in worse results. Admittedly it is arguable that puzzles are not for everyone and I do not have a link to this research so I cannot exactly use it to prove my point. Though there are many more experiments that prove that teenagers choose more reckless options and are more impressionable. I will provide a source for this at the end. Development is not a bad thing, no one would argue that a child's brain is not fully developed so why are we arguing that a teenagers brain is? At what point is a brain fully developed? Scans of the brain at different ages does in fact prove that at earlier ages the brain is still undeveloped. They show that the prefrontal cortex (which is essentially the part of your brain that determines how 'grown up' you act) is the part that develops last meaning that the teenage brain is physiologically pre-determined to be reckless. A driving stimulation experiment indicates that teenagers are more likely to take risks when their friends are present. Sources: http://www.health.harvard.edu... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hillary Clinton Is a Werewolf

Rebutting the Rebuts my opponents rebutted over my rebutted rebuttals: R2) She was in mid shift, so obviously her eyes were not as slit as they should be, as she was attempting to retain her human form. But wolf's eyes wouldn't need to be slit, they would just remain round even upon transforming. 1) it only way after she started receiving criticism that she confirmed she was ill, she could've changed her play if it was a lie. 2) Yes, the famous Clinton body doubles. However, the internet is a scary place they take the slightest pictures and compare them to see if there is a body double or not. Why would she use a body double mid day if she had strong physique and was not sick? Alright, to sum up my own points: 1) physical appearance She has slit eyes. Hence, she can't be a werewolf that has round eyes. 2) Her health. Werewolves have stronger physique, but Hilary Clinton has displayed signs of mortal illnesses. 3)She DOES appear in public during full moon nights without turning. Again, this was a wonderful argument, thank you for making it entertaining.