BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans are addicted to water

I would first like to begin my debate with stating that there is a distinct difference between an addictive substance and something that is required for physiological function to continue. This is where water falls, with our body being made up of some 75% water it is hard to imagine that one can be addicted to something that comprises some 75% of their own body. The addiction of a substance and or substance abuse requires one to physically or mentally rely on a substance in order to cope with something in their life be it emotional, physical, or social. This is where the lines don't meet as water clearer doesn't have that addictive effect that drugs like caffeine, alcohol, and ice among others have and rely on. It is because of this key factor that water is not addictive and is merely a key component in physiological function in all living things.
Humanism should replace traditional theism

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith. This kind of progressive philosophy transcends religious, ethnic, cultural,political, ideological and social boundaries, which makes ideal for the modern age, but most importantly it embraces ethical responsibility and secular moral philosophy. This worldview also advocates for beliefs based on (rational and/or physical) evidence. it helps us realize that human life is short and should be lived and experienced to the fullest according to how we see ourselves and others in the here and now. One great flaw in western monotheistic-based moralities is that they are not thought through and chosen on the basis of individual responsibility like humanism, but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way. As a result, it limits and cuts away certain grains of human nature. it also asserts that morality wasn't evolutionary developed but was given by a supposed creator and thus we cannot be good or do good without him/her/it. in conclusion, I definitely view that humanism produces the effort to be a free-minded individual in pursuit of worthwhile goals suited to one's individuality is surely central to the very idea of the good: it is what gives us our best chance to be fully human, and at the same time " in the spirit of shared humanity " to develop our affections in our communities, to promote the values of kindness and tolerance, and to celebrate the enjoyment of all the things that make life beautiful and satisfying.
Early Childhood Education

I can see your point regarding a parent's choice, however you should consider the parent's who work and may need to place their child in something during the hours they work, instead of just sending a child to head start would'nt you agree a Head Start, or any type of early education would be the better, more beneficial choice? You mentioned a pitfall being a child may learn undesirable/unwanted behaviors from their peers - while this could be a possibility, teachers and parents within a Head Start program are in constant communication, there is also a Health Coordinator who goes in to observe the children screening children who need a different enviornment be placed accordingly. The unwanted/undesireable behaviors from their peers would be what exactly? Please clarify what three and four year olds would be doing that would be to such an extreme? Also what do you mean by conformity? These children are in classroom settings with two adults, a teacher and assistant teacher... this is mimicking the classroom they will be in once attending kindergarten. Can you provide factual backing to your arguement of a child participaitng in early education negatively impacts the family bond? The entire purpose of a Head Start Program, for example was created to help families (not just children) who were of low income areas to advance themselves. The program always invites parents to volunteer and contains many programs throughout the year to bring parents and their children together.
Early Childhood Education

The choice for whether or not a child goes to pre-kindergarden (or a comparable program such as head start) should remain the parents choice. Pre-k is only one of the many options parents have available to socialize and educate their children, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right one, as those type of programs also come with their pitfalls. Some of those pitfalls are: learning undesirable/unwanted behaviors from their peers & conformity. Not to mention that putting children into school too early can also take away from the time a parent has to bond with their child, thus potentially negatively affecting family attachment. It should remain the parents right to evaluate the pro's and con's of their options and utilize what they may feel is proper for their child according to their child's needs.
Early Childhood Education

I apologize for not being specific. The arguement is that there is no real requirement for education before kindergarten in New York. I propose that while early childhod education isn't a mandate, it really is in the child's best interest to be placed in a Universal Pre-Kindergarten or a Head Start Program. Their participation in this early education can only be beneficial to a child's development. As mentioned in my opening statement, a child who participates in a program like this can be benefited in the following ways: - A child may be observed by professionals who may see developmental problems which leads to early intervention; i.e finding the appropriate help for the child. - Early exposure to a classroom setting helps a child develop early socializaton skills. - Children are exposed to concepts they will learn in Kindergarten, which is beneficial because it provides an educational framework.
Early Childhood Education

You may have a child or hear about a child from a friend who is around three years old and is described as behaving badly. Some children act out and may be in need for a different environment apart from the home. When thinking about a place to put the child a daycare may come to mind, however a smarter option is a preschool program.While early childhood education is not mandatory, it is very beneficial to children. Preschool, such as a Head start Program, provides a child with early socialization skills along with an educational framework. This program also exposes the child to be observed by professionals who may see developmental problems that leads to early intervention; i.e finding the appropriate help for the child. A child is exposed to a classroom environment where through the interaction with two teachers and other children, they are taught early socialization. Children interacting with other children enhances their interaction skills and creates formative environment where children can learn how to behave and express themselves. Being in a classroom setting tackles separation anxiety a child may feel being apart from their parent(s) and home. Children who participate in a Head Start deal with this better because they have been exposed early on to being away from their parents. This makes the transition to kindergarten easier for the child. Children are introduced to a educational framework through the curriculum Head Start utilizes, which is the Creative Curriculum. The Creative Curriculum is based around the child's interests and responses to teacher planned lessons. This curriculum tends to focus needs towards children who are dual language learners as well as children with disabilities. Children exposed to this curriculum benefit from a planned day with lessons that are geared towards a region of developing basic skills children will need. The Head Start program is also geared to providing aid to children who may be found with developmental problems. Speech evaluations are conducted after a teacher puts in a request once observing the problem within class. Children are also evaluated for IEP's, Individual Education Plan's where special education may be necessary to progress a child who may have problems developing. Special Education Itinerant Teacher's or SEIT's, may be assigned to children who require cognitive development, socialization skills, or other services. This teacher travels to the student and spends a set amount of hours acting as the child's individual teacher. Early educational programs are especially important in this area because they catch problems early with the child and provide the resources to providing services as soon as a child is found in need of them. These three examples are only a few of the various reasons for how early childhood education is beneficial to a child. A program such as Head Starts provides a child with an early edge to their educational growth, and social development.
Early Childhood Education

To respond to your argument. I didn't say that the participation of early childhood education negatively impacts the family bond. My words were "putting children into school too early can also take away from the time a parent has to bond with their child, thus potentially negatively affecting family attachment." The key point there is that the time the child has to spend with his/her family is being lessened and therefore it could produce negative affects (since the time for bonding is being reduced). Bonding time with the family is important, especially within the first few years of development. Kindergarten was put into effect in order to prepare children for school. And now there are preparation programs for the preparation program put into place by our government. The problem isn't with children needing to enter school earlier. The problem is with the quality of education being given to children. Even if a child enters a quality preschool program, that doesn't necessarily mean the effects will last, as some research is showing. The children who benefit from the programs are more than likely end up in high poverty schools afterwards, and after a few years, there is no real difference between them and their peers. There is also the fact that they are being exposed even earlier to the mannerisms of other kids, like cursing, & other forms of aggressive behaviors, which parents who aren't teaching this to their kids, find undesirable. While pre-schools can be a place to for a child to learn to socialize (for those who havent already done so), there is also the matter that they are learning to comply. Individuality is put to the side and the needs of collective group is put first. Given, this is a necessary skill. But why deprive a child of of a little more time to develop their own character, so that they can learn a skill that they will eventually pick up once they begin their formal education anyway (assuming they aren't already being taught this at home)? On top of all this, there is also the growing concern of parents that children are being over diagnosed (ie. ADHD, ODD, etc.) and over-prescribed at younger ages now. Considering all of these factors, is it really in the best interest of a child to place him or her in pre-kindergarten or head start when the effects seem to fade out after a couple of years and the benefits may not always outweigh the costs? Instead of providing approximately 8.1 billion dollars of public funding for preparation programs such as Head Start (whose benefits are questionable), would't it be wiser to use the public funding to improve upon the system which is already in place? http://berkeley.edu... & http://sitemaker.umich.edu... http://www.newamerica.net... http://tulsainitiative.wordpress.com... http://www.newsnet5.com...
The school year should be elongated and summer vacation should only be a month long

I'll start by addressing your counterpoints.1. With the economy being the way it is right now, there is no guarantee that there will be more full time jobs when the kids leave school. I think that families with low income need summer jobs in order to stay afloat. Shortening the summer does not guarantee anything when it comes to full time jobs. Also, with school being as long as it is today, students get to enjoy their time at school. School does not just exist in order to get full time jobs; it is an experience. Getting out sooner would shorten this integral time for children to integrate with social groups and learn how to interact in positive manners.2. If we were just looking at camps, you might have a point. However, camps are only a small segment of the activities open to kids. What if a child wanted to spend the summer learning and perfecting a musical instrument? What if the kid wants to join a baseball team? You counter that a child can make time during the school year, which is true, but it fails to take into account how much easier it is for a child to get into this activity in the summer. Consider that a child is still developing their brain, which leads to an early disadvantage in multitasking. This is especially true when it comes to teenagers. The point is that summer vacation is the most ideal time in pursuing new activities and hobbies. Reducing summer vacation would hurt this.3. In my opinion, most teenagers don't want to start their adult life when they're 15-18. They want certain aspects, but they rarely want the entire package of adult life. Every teenager wants a car, but do they want to pay taxes and pay for their own food? Probably not. The freedom for kids to enjoy their long summers is essential. I don't think that rushing past your childhood is a good idea. Again, this is just personal philosophy.Many adults can tell you to appreciate the time you have in school. Summer is an integral part of school and it should not be shortened. To be cliché, it is the yin to school's yang. Children need to have something to look forward to during the school year and nothing is more rewarding than a long refreshing summer.
The school year should be elongated and summer vacation should only be a month long

I first would like to say that my opponent has presented very good arguments.But I will now try to counter them and give more points on my side.1. You said that students in high school (sorry for not being precise on an age range) needed time during the summer vacation to work summer jobs. But in the way I said with shortening the total years of school, wouldn't it be a more intelligent thing to work full time jobs after leaving school (that most certainly have better pay)?2. Your second argument was extracurricular activities. Although these are necessary in a child's life, they most of the time do not end up taking the whole period of summer vacation. Most summer camps last only 2-4 weeks and other activities are often measured weekly, so I do not believe shortening the summer break would change much. And if someone is willing to never the less pursue his activity, I am sure it can be rescheduled in the year.3. You third and final point for round 1 was that we should let kids be kids. But I am sure you, just as most adolescents at the ages of 15-18 only want to move on and start there adult life.Something you added as well was that taking a year off of school time would not help the economy, as there would be more job seekers and more job rejections. But have you thought of the fact that if we can't find jobs in our country, it is because we are rivaled with other countries in the world that may have a better education system. A big example of this is Asian countries such as China and Japan. On average, for young children, they have about 8 hours of studying every day whereas in the US there is only about 4 hours. This of course produces way more competent workers in Asia that often come to the US, and this is why the number of job offers is declining.An argument I would like to add is why the summer vacation was created. It was done in this way because farm workers needed there children to work during these periods of the year. But today? Before, it was a break to work on something else. It has evolved in something it was never supposed to be. If farm workers had never needed their children to work on their farms, there is a chance we wouldn't be having this debate today, because summer vacation would never have been "a thing".
The school year should be elongated and summer vacation should only be a month long

That being said, you fail to cite any sources. You say "Do the math" and "studies show", but where are you getting this information from? I do not think that summer vacation should be altered. Summer vacation in its current format is important because:1. Summer JobsSome children need to work with their families in order to make ends meet. This pertains more to high school students, but since my opponent has failed to specify an age group, I will assume a child is from birth to high school graduation.2. Extra Curricular ActivitiesSummer is a great time to try new things for children. The common example of this is a camp. Many parents consider sending their children to camps in order to learn new things and be in a different environment. Children need different environments in order to stimulate brain function and growth.3. Let Kids be KidsI do admit this last point is based almost entirely on philosophy, but you're only a child once. I think that we should let the children have fun during summer vacation and relax for as long as possible. When they're adults, they will be working 40 hours a week and dealing with the stresses of everyday life. One of a parent's duties should be to let their children enjoy the best time of their lives. My opponent says that if all the students would graduate earlier this would help the economy. I disagree completely. All that would do is flood the market with younger graduates. More people fighting for a finite number of jobs does not help the economy.
The school year should be elongated and summer vacation should only be a month long

For many years already, the summer school vacation has been more than two months long, and in some places even more.But do kids really need this much vacation?Studies show, as we all know, that children need to rest and can not work all day for long strips of time. But it is also said that two months is completely unnecessary. In fact, in some states of the US, kids only have 3 weeks over the summer, and it is enough!But there are other reasons to this change. If you do the math, taking away a month of school every year could make kids graduate at least a whole year earlier. In the current economy, this could be something very helpful!I am looking forward to debating this with one of you!
The school year should be elongated and summer vacation should only be a month long

My rebuttal:Although this may be a good argument, it can work both ways: If children have longer summer vacation, they do not have that school time to interact with their friends and teachers, and have a good 'experience'.Summer gives a chance for children to plan out their own activities without any worry of a school night. Instead of the daily routine of school, children can plan for what they want. This could be viewed as a critical period for a child; it allows them to take control of their own life for a span of time. Long summer vacations allow for travel with friends and family that would otherwise interrupt their learning capabilities. New places and experiences are very important for the growth of the child's mind. If kids have many activities and hobbies, they can not focus on their school work.I feel as if my words are being misunderstood. I think there is a difference between multitasking that affects homework and multitasking during the summer. If a kid is multitasking between several hobbies that he has, that is fine. However, when a child has distractions around him during the school year he suffers. With the more 'focused ideas', I think that a child's development should be broad. They should take in all sorts of bits and pieces of information and process them. You say this as if it were erasing childhood all together. All it is taking away, is ONE year.I apologize if I come off like that. Long summers are important to children. I think that they allow children to take a fresh breath away from school and persue other interests.To be fair, I see both sides. However, I think that long summers is the least of the problems of the educational system. I think there is much needed reform in order to benefit the children, but long summers is not a clear problem.Sorry if I haven't addressed everything, bit in a rush myself.
The school year should be elongated and summer vacation should only be a month long

I will start by addressing your arguments and counter arguments."I think that families with low income need summer jobs in order to stay afloat. Shortening the summer does not guarantee anything when it comes to full time jobs."What about families with children that can not yet work summer jobs? The families would need to pay for day cares/nannies, while they work full time jobs to feed their family. If summer vacation is shortened, people have a secure place they can bring their children, without worrying about extra cost."School does not just exist in order to get full time jobs; it is an experience. Getting out sooner would shorten this integral time for children to integrate with social groups and learn how to interact in positive manners."Although this may be a good argument, it can work both ways: If children have longer summer vacation, they do not have that school time to interact with their friends and teachers, and have a good 'experience'."Consider that a child is still developing their brain, which leads to an early disadvantage in multitasking... summer vacation is the most ideal time in pursuing new activities and hobbies."Let me explain to you why these two arguments contradict each other. If kids have many activities and hobbies, they can not focus on their school work. If they focus on school, and can leave it a year earlier, they will have more focused ideas and have a lot of time later to have hobbies and activities."The freedom for kids to enjoy their long summers is essential. I don't think that rushing past your childhood is a good idea. Again, this is just personal philosophy."I'd just like to make myself clear on something. You say this as if it were erasing childhood all together. All it is taking away, is ONE year. Imagine all the things kids could do in this one year, after they have left school.I do not have that much time left to write my argument, so I will end here for this round.
The St. Louis Cardinals made a huge mistake in not signing a free agent hitter.

Grichuk, Moss, and Piscotty are all expected to have considerable rises in production. The analytics say so. Also, the fact that those players are expected to have increased production will help balance out any drop in production someone in the lineup has. Plus, watching those players develop is cheaper and more cost effective than making a risky signing of a power hitter for 25 million a year. Also, Busch Stadium is a pitchers park, and that hinders some of the offensive production [8]. The decline in offensive production isn't just evident with the Cardinals, it's happening all across Major League Baseball. Pitchers have improved each year, and especially in a league such as the NL where guys like Clayton Kershaw, Zack Greinke, and Jake Arrieta reside, offense is tough to produce. Also, Brandon Moss fits the description of a power guy completely. He's a feast or famine hitter who can produce solid year round stats. Also, he comes at a much cheaper price than Chris Davis or Pedro Alvarez. Also, if the Cardinals have relied on pitching to make the playoffs, why should they change their philosophy? It's worked for the past 5 year, getting them to the World Series twice and winning it all in 2011. With a solid pitching staff and a lights out bullpen, their pitching should remain top notch. Sources: 8. http://www.vivaelbirdos.com...