BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework

OH NO! I was in a vacation, and I was unavailable to internet. Oh, well. I will continue. Anyway, you say for kids, it is not very helpful. HOWEVER, despite scores of studies, definitive conclusions remain a matter of some debate. It depends on what state, city, school, and amount of homework, and many conclusions tend to be biased. (quote from http://www.greatschools.org...). You claim homework creates a lot of stress. But I can easily finish all of my homework in about 2 hours, and has the rest of the day to do whatever I want to do. All kids who take more than 5 hours on homework is usually due to procrastination, lack of focus, and lack of knowledge on the subject. There is no alternative to homework. If you want to review something, that is the only way to do so. At schools, they have the best studying material, as they should. Homework shouldn't take much stress, and the kids who do take stress must be very weakhearted, unable to do something all the other peers can do! Most stress are caused because of irresponsible parents who cannot enforce kids to do the homework, and have the rest of the day free, and rather walk around the house, lull about, and take as much time as they can on doing homework. Any sane parent would say something about their behavior. You also say teachers should be responsible for the kids, be responsible, and take good notes. But in a country where teachers get paid around 10 dollars and hour, you'd be very lucky to find a handful in a city. You also say that you can just increase teacher work time. But they are already complaining about long work hours, and increasing work hours would also raise taxes to pay extra for teachers. I really don't want to do this, but let's compare the US and South Korea (only because I am knowledgable on both teaching systems). South Korean children come home at ten o clock (it's not an exaggeration, look it up online) from cram schools, homework, and other things. At school kids are under so much stress that there is a 10 percent chance that a child will commit suicide before the age of 18. At the beginning of elementary school, they are taught about competition. The class average is an A-. In EACH CLASS there is a child that has skipped THREE GRADE LEVELS. Of course I am not saying that America should be this way!!!! But one cannot help but notice that many of the smartest countries are in Asia. The US is 25th. 25TH! (look it up in google, I can't find the URL. Sorry) Homework MUST be one of the key factors that they are doing so well.
Homework

Thank you for bringing up this topic, as I will be quite happy to refute your arguements. Although your topic is not quite clear, I shall believe that as I am pro, I am saying that homework is good. Homework, especially in America, is a fundamental part of children's education. It is a necessary tool to go over what they learned during class. Most, if not all, of classes need to review topics. Listening and taking notes is not enough in school. If children do not have homework, would they actually go over notes? Would they really find worksheets to fill in, projects to make, essays to write, and problems to solve? Unless their parents enforce their kids to do work, if homework was optional, at least 90% of kids wouldn't do homework! Even for the children who WOULD do the homework, homework is an essential guide that leads them to success on their next test or quiz. To sum it up, homework is a necessary tool, most children wouldn't do homework if it was optional, and it will make them better students.
Large federal government

I consider all of the USFG to hold too much power. Some examples include how the supreme court essentially can over-ride precedent and essentially write law themselves. One example is with the Obergefell V. Hodges case which is in conflict with the Baker V Nelson case in which same-sex marriage was brought up to the supreme court and they said it lacked a federal question, which implies marriage is a state issue. No law was passed federally to allow gay marriages, and the supreme court had to use an amendment which was originally intended to grant rights to slaves, and essentially wrote their own law. While I am someone who supports the legalization of gay marriage, I still don't consider it to be a federal issue. Then another example of how the federal government has gotten too large is with all the many departments and programs we now have. The beginning of our nation had very few programs and departments. While, again, I would support majority of them, I don't think many of them should be up to the federal government. 1. Now my opponent says that the federal government can effectively implement social programs. However, I would ask how can a government that governs over so many people know the needs of every single individual? It is much more likely that a local government will know the specific needs of the community than the federal government would. In addition, when the federal government passes blanket items, such as the Affordable Care Act, it may not actually be the best for everyone and only benefits some. For example, there are still millions who are uninsured and can't afford insurance despite this program ( http://www.factcheck.org... ) So, I really wonder how such a broad government can possibly meet all the needs of each individual when there is so much diversity. In addition, most politicians on the federal level appear to care more about gridlock and partisanship than solving people's problems. One just needs to look at how we've almost had the federal government shut down twice because republicans and democrats could not agree on a budget. What will happen if we rely too much on the federal government for all of these social programs, but the government shuts down due to partisanship? This partisanship does not exist among the local government, and they can and do get things done. I would like to refer you to this TED talk on why mayors should rule the world, it make great points: https://www.ted.com... The federal government can't even agree to pass legislation to deal with global warming, due to partisanship. Many cities, however, are already working together to deal with global warming. 2. I agree that the articles of confederation were problematic, however that problem was solved as soon as we had the constitution. We didn't have nearly as many social programs, departments of the government, and growing bureaucracy back in the early days of the constitution. I would not suggest to go back to the articles of confederation, but rather to something similar to how it was in the early days of the constitution.
Large federal government

Hello, and thank you for the debate! In the interest of word management, I'll go right to arguments. I will first discuss an overarching question for the debate, then address my opponent"s arguments and finally move to my own. I would like to ask for what specific parts of the USFG you believe holds too much power. This information would allow the debate to continue in a more organized manner. With this distinction unclear, I will move forward arguing that A large federal government is preferable overall. My opponent argued that A large federal government is not preferable because the majority will be unhappy. While approval ratings are low, it is still preferable to have the federal government in place because of the effects. An example of this is OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Admin.). OSHA, implemented by the USFG under Richard Nixon, increased worker safety regulations by requiring standards for safety for workers. This benefits the entirety of the population. Therefore, A large federal government is preferable because it passes favorable legislature. I will now introduce two arguments. 1.A large federal government is preferable because it is able to effectively implement social programs. A.The USFG, while it has power, is able to implement programs such as welfare, social security, housing programs, and food stamps programs. According to Forbes[1] 1 in 5 Americans rely on one of such programs. Decreasing the federal government"s power would remove access to these programs to those that use them, therefore A large federal government is preferable because it is needed by Americans. 2.A large federal government is preferable because it provides A unified international front. A.The USFG allows the nation to effectively bargain, negotiate, and take action on the international scale. When this power is taken, it severely inhibits any action. This can be seen in the example of the Articles of confederation. When the federal government is under powered, the nation is unable to act. It has been shown as empirically false that A system with A weak federal government is preferable
Large federal government

The primary reason I oppose a large federal government, is because it provides the least amount of satisfaction among the people. When local governments are empowered, and federal government is weak, there is more happiness among the people. I'll demonstrate why through this example: Suppose country A has 20% of the people who are extremely right-wing, then 15% of people who are moderately right-wing, 20% who are slightly right-wing, 10% who are moderate, 25% who are slightly left-wing, 5% who are moderately left-wing, and 5% who are extremely left-wing. For a republic, if the federal government is doing all of the important policies, you will have more or less a slightly right-wing government based on those percentages. In other words, only 20% of the people are satisfied with the government. However, since demographics are often different among each city, and it tends to be the case that cities tend to be much more conservative or liberal(and rarely have the same ideological make-up of the nation as a whole), they can implement the same policies, and with each city doing their own policies, more people will be satisfied. It's just natural for people to be more satisfied with local government. A statistic that is also worth mentioning is that 72% of Americans trust their local(city) governments, while only 62% trust state government( http://www.gallup.com... ) and 19% trust the federal government ( http://www.npr.org... ) I would argue the reason they trust their local governments more is because they are more likely to know the people in office. Therefore, since you're more likely to know the person in office, they are more likely to know each individuals' needs and desires and better fulfill them than someone in the federal government would. I suppose I will leave it at that for now.
Haircut policies must not be abolished in schools

Hmmm, I don't quite understand your actual argument. But since you are pro to not abolishing haircut policies, I am assuming that these haircut policies are neat and tidy, and specific to uniformed dress-code. Society in general has many different hairstyles. Actually it is feasable to say we have thousands of different hair styles. If we include a hair-style from every culture, every society, and include every form, color, tone, curve, volume and length of hair, we will come up with almost infinite possibilities. To limit hairstyling to a simple 2-5 styles is outrageous. It undermines freedom of expression. Yes, you might not be praised by some because you don't have neat hair, but there will be many more that repsect you for doing your own hair the way you want it, mainly because it proves you are free. Hair does not affect anything in life. If I have shorter hair than you it is most definitly not certain that I will die before you because of it. If I die my hair black and not keep it it's natural color, I am not going to be given more points on a test for it. But onto the issue that you are saying. You are saying that it is bad to destroy "nice and tidy" policies of schools on the issue of hair. Most people for these policies say it is for uniformity and security, but my friend Mr. Bejamin Franklin says this "Those who give up a little freedom for a little bit of security, will deserve neither." Therefore, I believe it is good of people to abolish these policies.
Life is Intelligently Designed

This debate challenge has been forwarded to v3nesl. Leave a message if you need debate settings/parameters changed. Intelligent Design is an umbrella term, as it encompasses several methods, or attempts to demonstrate the intelligent design of life. Pro needs to present one or more of these arguments to fulfill their BoP to demonstrate the notion of intelligent design. The format is reversed, since the accepting party has the burden of proof, therefore: 10,000 Words, 72 hours. Round 1: Rules, Opening Arguments Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals (Closing from Pro) Round 4: Rebuttals & Closing from Con, Pro will type "No Round as agreed" The format is to ensure the same number of argument/rebuttal rounds. Good Luck!
Edible Vaccines

As a microbiologist who often works with genetically modified plants, I will be glad to take the stance of Pro in this debate. I would like to thank Con for presenting this debate, and am certainly eager to get started. Given that Con has not elucidated full arguments, but has rather simply outlined his case, I will follow suit and allow him to present the first full arguments in the next round. For the time being, here's that outline. 1. Edible vaccines are a dramatic improvement on the current systems available, requiring significantly lower costs long term, far less expertise on the delivery end, permitting a far wider dissemination of vaccines, and generally improving the situation with vaccinations at home and abroad. 2. The technology is taking massive leaps forward, and quickly finding ways around the various barriers that make it a possible danger. The extensive testing regimens that such foods have to go through ensures that safety concerns are resolved before they go to general use. With that, I'll leave off and allow Con to begin elucidating his arguments.
There is a God.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason First, I address the age old argument that nothing exists without sufficient reason. All things in existence require a sufficient explanation for their existence. Imagine a glass ball in a forest, you would assume that someone or something had put that glass ball there. If the glass ball was the size of the Earth, you would still assume something had put it there, if it was the size of the Universe, you would still have to assume that someone or something had put it there. The size of the ball doesn't changes its neccesity for sufficient reason of its existence. Using the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason)we come to the...Leibnizian Cosmological Argument The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is this: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause. The Universe does indeed, exist. If the universe does have an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. Therefore, the Universe does have an explanation for its existence. Therefore, the explanation for the Universe's existence is God. Premise One: Premise one is merely a restatement of basic PSR, think back to the glass ball example. Premise Two: The universe exists, and I hope my opponent would agree. Premise Three: Three is the logical equivalent to what atheists often affirmthat if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence. Forthe transcendent cause must be immaterial, and there are two things which fitsuch a description: abstract objects or Minds. But abstract objects don’t standin causal relations, they don't fit our criteria for existence, hence the causeof the universe must be an ultra-mundane mind. The universe clearly exists (premise 2), sotherefore it follows logically that the universe has an explanation, thatexplanation being God. Premise Four: See premise 1 and 2 Premise Five: See premise 3 and 4 Argument from the Laws of Thermodynamics According to the Law of the Conservation of Energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The Universe is made up of energy. If energy cannot be created (premise one) there is no Universe. There is a universe, so an external force independent of Laws of Thermodynamics must exist, God. God exists. The only other explanation for the existence of energy would be that the Universe is eternal, or it never had to be created. This however conflicts with the Second law of thermodynamics. According to the Second law of thermodynamics, the universe has a limited amount of energy it can expend. Therefore, the universe is finite. If the universe is finite, then it cannot be eternal. For the universe to exist, a force outside of the laws of thermodynamics would have been needed, God. The Universe exists. God exists. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.maverick-christian.org...
Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

I will be CON in this debate. PRO's assertion: "that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory." I claim this to be false. As per the requirements mentioned in round 1: 1. No unproven scientific theory can count as evidence to support a claim. 2. Only facts and theories supported with evidence should be considered. Burden of proof is on PRO to demonstrate how science supports creationism and "destroys" the Big Bang. Thank you, Yoshidino, for this opportunity to debate, I look forward to it. The floor is PRO's!
Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

I am not a "Christian" to western standards. I believe In the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Old covenant and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant as completely true history. I believe the Creation account in B'reshit (Genesis) to be literally true, and done in six literal days. I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory. No insults, and a rebuttal for every argument. Besides this, no rules. I am almost positive you will bring up quantum mechanics and physics. So I want to Let you know that no unproven theory can count as a proper rebuttal. Please give me facts, and evidence to support your theory as I will do the same for mine. If you make a claim, please back it up with evidence and example.
Barack Obama is a good president

My opponent states, "Wow lets look at the stereotypical comment my opponent assumes all republicans are war hawks more baseless conjecture. .. " However, it is just a fact that ever since Nixon, the Republican's have been the more militaristic party. Look at Ronald Reagan and both the Bushes compared to Clinton or Carter. No, Iraq was their own sovereign nation. Sure, Saddam sucked, but why is it our business? And no, it's not better safe than sorry. That just shows that the United States can't keep our promises. And how do we not know they weren't happy before we came in? My opponent claims that homosexuality causes tension in the military however. A recent poll from the pentagon came out that stated 90% of soldiers didn't mind working with homosexuals. The point is is that if the higher ups hear that you're gay, then they would kick you out, no questions out. If they want to serve, let them serve! I'm sorry, when I said 2000 jobs, I meant 2000 jobs the first month it was released. I believe it's created a lot more. In fact, it's been around 60,000 (according to Anderson Cooper, not you're "lame stream media"). Obamacare has been passed by the house and the senate. There's no deny it. Google it if you don't believe me. Also, the bill does not take effect until 2014. That's just another fact that is in the bill. My opponent's case. 1. I believe my opponent lost me along with nearly everyone else when he called our President a muslim. I don't believe there is any tension between homosexuals and religious people. I myself am a man of faith, and I believe we need to do what Jesus said and stop hating others. 2. No, I'm not calling my opponent a Republican extremist. I am saying that there are extremists in every group of people. Whether it's republicans or democrats or atheists and christians. And fine, I won't use the Republican party. Allow me to rephrase my question as, "Aren't there people like my opponent has mentioned that supported John McCain? " And If I yell "I hate Obama! " People will come out with their guns and say, "Amen! " I live in the south. .. (That's a joke by the way. ) 3. Baseless dribble? I'm not sure what that means, but what I can tell you is that Obama is not going to let North Korea or Iran bomb us so easily. He knows the risks and dangers these countries pose. It's only natural that investigations of these countries will follow. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm doing.
Barack Obama is a good president

1. I would like to say that the Republicans are the more militaristic party. However, we can't argue on assumptions. President Obama ended the war in Iraq by the date he promised. The war should have ended there many years ago. We agreed that after Iraq had 2 safe elections, we'd leave. That's not the case. I believe we've stayed there for 4 elections. 2. Look, I'm not saying that homosexuals should run around screaming their sexuality. But the point is, is that if they catch word that you're gay, they kick you out! That's not right, and that is a human rights violation. Saying that just because people are gay, they will try to hit on the fellow soldiers is very judgemental. Aren't there women in the war effort? Who says the men wouldn't hit on them? 3. President Obama, White House Communications Director Gibbs, and David Axelrod all says the stimulus packages have SAVED or created 2,000 jobs. How would you feel if you or your parents lost their job? Hold that thought. How would you feel if the stimulus got their job back or got them another one? 4. Healthcare has been passed by congress. It just hasn't taken effect yet. It will start in 2012. The whole point of the bill is to provide a government option. The government option gives the multibillion dollar insurance companies something to compete with so they can't rip us off. 1. So my opponent is saying the North and South are still divided? I would like to think better of my country. Gay rights is a big deal. I think it's just as important as the civil rights bill of 1964. These people can't get married or even serve their country in the military! I personally wouldn't be gay, but we can't deny people these rights. How has the President caused racial tension? Is it because he's the first black President? 2. I agree Obama was overestimated in 2008. However, this debate is not about his election, it's about his presidency. Besides, aren't there people like my opponent has mentioned in the Republican party? 3. I think my opponent is almost making my case for me. President Obama has agreed that he will not give up nuclear weapons unless the other countries do also. I'm pretty sure the man knows what he's doing, and I doubt he wants his country to get nuked. Before the S. T. A. R. T progam takes effect, there will be multiple nuclear investigations of many countries.