BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should homework be banned? (In secondary school)

Firstly, I would like to ask this question. What is homework? Well according to Google, homework is schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home. . https://www.google.co.uk... Homework is pointless because kids do enough work in school and they don't need more. When they come home they want to relax, have time for themselves , or do something fun. I don't know about you, but in England, children are in school for 8 hours everyday doing school work. They only have a 15 minute break at break time and a 55 minute at lunch time. Which I don't think is long enough (but that's for another day to argue about LOL). I'm currently a yr10 student who is going into yr11. Like many other students, and even some teachers. They all agree that homework is pointless and not really helpful! !! Here are just a handful of reasons why : -It is stressful -It takes away from free time -It takes away from after school sports -It can negatively affect performance -We have to deal with 8 hours of school already -Other countries, like Japan, have less homework but higher IQ (They also do HOMEWORK, inside SCHOOL! ) -It takes away family time - Some children have chores to do, like looking after younger siblings while parents are at work. - Also, no science backs up homework benefits. Instead of doing homework, (which a handful of teacher don't acctuly bother to mark) I would prefer to use my so called 'home time' revising for tests. Not coming home at 4.00 and staying up all night doing work that's not even going to be marked.
Paul of Tarsus is a bigot and should be as revered as he is.

In regards to your comment that men are above woman: you: "In life you have a father,boss,president, in one way or another you submit to their will. You have a submissive role to these authority figures. You are correct that in a marriage woman and men do not hold equal roles." Father: is your elder and raised you, so he is deserving of your respect, not submission. Boss: You willingly work for them, and they pay, deserving of respect, but since you can quit, still is not submission. President: Runs the country, of course is very deserving of respect, but seeing how we elect the president, we are not subbmissive. you forgot mother, who as your father deserves the same as the father. You: "Just as in the church a pastor and a choir member do not have an equal role. If everyone is in a decision making role chaos ensues.God knows this, and in his wisdom has decreed that everyone has a specific role to follow. Society is built upon these roles, from households to government." A churches pastor is in charge of the church and the choir just sings, in a marriage both parents can work and be raising the children.And saying god decreed it is just a confinient excuse for men to dominate thier wifes. You: "Shall be one flesh is not symbolic of love.... In a person there are conflicting feelings and emotions as you are well aware. A reasonable person comes to an important decision in life and weighs pros and cons for each course this person can choose, while at this point this person can become undecided. As in a marriage two people can have different opinions and still be of one will. Of course it's symbolic... they cant litteraly merge to become one body, therefore the becoming one refers to the merging of the minds, because they love one another, definently symbolic of love. Also they can have differing opinions AND differing wills. You: did treat women with respect, just as all men should. Respect does not equal equality. The bible teaches that women and men are placed in different roles at home and in the church. yes respect does not equal equality, but in this i believethat the bible does teach equality. They are placed in equaly important roles. For example: Mothersand Fathers: are nothing without thier children Pastor: does not exist without a congregation. Boss: cant run a buissness without employees President: without the common people, has no country to run or to be elected by. All these examples consist of relationships which are mutually respecting and equal. Like the founders of the United States of America so wisely put: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Oh and to those sexists out thier, men means mankind.
Paul of Tarsus is a bigot and should be as revered as he is.

The whole thing of women submitting to the husbands and the husbands love the wife as christ loves the church, still says that women are not the equals of men because men are not the equals of Jesus. Men and women becoming one in flesh is symbolic of love. And even if they were one in flesh as paul decrees, a woman still has her own, god given, free will to think as she wills, not as her husband wills. And when you say christianity does not teach equality between the sexes, i believe you are wrong. Jesus treated woman with just as much respect as men and did not place them below men. People who believe that christianity does not teach equality are the same that take the bible out of context for thier own gain like a husband forcing his wife to be submissive. You said: "If a woman and man become one flesh as Paul decrees, then their own creeds, beliefs, or opinions can not differ." I am sorry but that is extremely wrong. we all have free will to do as we want. and please find me a husband and wife who agree on everything. I meant he was not one of the twelve disciples chosen by jesus, I apologize for the wording. Paul was not one of the twelve and they should be given more credance than Paul as they were nearest to Jesus and the hoky spirit came upon them during pentecost. Yes he was speaking of slavery during his time where it was common, but one human owning another is wrong i any time and it denines the god given rights of others. No free will... for one. no true christian apostle would promote slavery because the holy spirit should have given guidance stating it was immoral despite the times in which they lived.
Paul of Tarsus is a bigot and should be as revered as he is.

First off i meant should NOT be revered not should... sorry I believe that Paul of Tarsus was a bigot. In his letters he states that wifes should treat there husbands as we treat jesus because as jesus is the head of the church a husband is the head of the wife. Now correct me if im wrong but doesnt christianity teach equality... That seems slightly sexist. Also he was not an apostle chosen by god, but a self appointed one. For those of you who would say that he was eventually accepted by the survivng apostles may be true, but the apostle themselves were not perfect. If they were then Paul and Peter would not have had a conflict regarding peters treatment of gentiles. In Ephesians, paul says that slaves should be completely subservient to thier masters, some say that slaves actually refers to an employee. if that is the case then why does he make reference to slaves and freedmen.
The V.A. legislature should support Governer Kain's inititive to band smoking in restaurants.

My opponent brought out some of my mistakes and hopefully I can use what he said to improve my argument. Yes, Bill Hicks did say that about smoking, but after smelling that person, would they not want to go to that restaurant again from fear of having that smell while they eat. My opponent brought up a good point about places with high ceilings. How does a higher ceiling solve that problem? It only prolongs the problem created by the smell, but he is right about how it reduces the affects of second hand smoking. Now I shall begin my second round argument. My opponent also seemed to miss that even the least amount of second hand smoke leads to adverse health effects. Thus, making smoke-free restaurants better for the health of the general population in Virginia. Non-smokers alone have an increased risk of 25-30 percent of getting heart disease and up to 20-30 percent of lung cancer. That is just for those who do not smoke. 3,000 non-smokers die from lung cancer and 35,000 die from heart disease, and these people never touch a cigarette, but are affected by the part of society that does smoke. Banning smoking in restaurants should decrease the number of deaths caused in the future. Second hand smoke is considered a class A carcinogen because of the more than 4,000 chemicals in it, including formaldehyde, benzene, and hydrogen cyanide. I would also like to add that workers that smoke cause the employer to lose almost $1,000 a year in total excess and indirect health care costs. That can make or break a business in today's economy. Also, people that work at bars are 11/2 times more likely to die from lung cancer than if public places like a bar were smoke-free. People who work in these bars and restaurants have the highest prevalence of smoke-related lung cancer. The 8 hours that these people work every day can be the equivalent of smoking one pack of cigarettes. Second hand smoke increases the death rate of non-smokers by 30 percent per 30 minutes. It also increases a non-smokers short-time risk of having a heart attack. No properly conducted study shows a negative economic impact. Some even show that a smoke-free measure improves business. As evidence mounts about the dangers of secondhand smoke, so does the legal liability of employers—including restaurants. In addition, here's what restaurant owners pay out of pocket by allowing smoking in their establishments: - Higher maintenance expenses (carpets, drapes, cloths, paintwork) - Higher insurance premiums (fire, medical, workers comp, liability) - Higher labor costs (absenteeism, productivity) Ventilation systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars may reduce odor, but fail to guard against secondhand smoke's real health dangers. There is no safe level of secondhand smoke; no feasible ventilation system can control the health risk from secondhand smoke.
The V.A. legislature should support Governer Kain's inititive to band smoking in restaurants.

I would like to begin my arguement with a theory. A family is very concious about their health. When they go to a restaurant, there are ussually two sides, smoking and non-smoking. they would obviously choose the non-smoking side. what if the only thing separating these to sides was a three foot barrier. they would still have a high chance of being affected by the smoke that could easily cross over the barrier to where they are sitting. EPA has discovered that 3,000 adults that do not smoke die because they are near people that do smoke. This affect can be even greater on teens because at least 10 million teens live with one or MORE family member that smokes. EPA also states that children with asthma are greatly affected by second hand smoke. also, if the teens see their parents smoking or an older person smoking in a public area, they would eventually think that it is okay to smoke and lead to circle of smoking in these areas. this could also help in the decrease of smokers and decrease the huge amounts of money spent on those who are severly affected by smoking.
Milo Yiannopoulos is not an advocate of pedophilia

Definition of advocate: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy. [1] Proof Here is a video of Milo supporting pedophilia. "Milo doesn't give up the name of the priest who sexually abused him when he was in his fourteens "Milo denies that he was ever molested by the priest and claims that everything was perfectly consensual The age of consent in the UK is 16. By denying giving up the name of a priest who was a school teacher, Milo protects a pedophile and shows that he is ok with allowing pedophiles to continue preying on children. "Milo states that he went to hollywood parties. Again Milo protects their names and claims that many of the boys there were extremly young. Also stating that there were drugs and many were performing unsafe sex Support If I were an advocate of christianity, I would defend it because I believe in it. Milo just demonstrated that he was an advocate of pedophilia through protecting the various names of those who were pedophiles. The footage is right in the video and none of the sound in that video was edited to skip a few words to make it sound like Milo was advocating for pedophilia. Secondly I find it interesting that Milo would point out that he has called out others on pedophilia when he himself is an advocator of it. He has defended more names that those that he has called out. I would also like to point out that Milo has only pointed out those that would benefit his career/make him more popular, which leads to the conclusion that Milo actually doesn't care about catching pedophiles unless it benefits him. Which means that pointing out that he called out three pedophiles is useless when they were only used to further him. You have to ask yourself, does he really care? Funny that you find it disgusting for a man who was sexually abused to have to apologize for making extremely rude comments and defending pedophiles. So just because he was sexually abused means he gets the get out of jail free card? No, that's really not how justice works. Milo should have expected this reaction to every single comment he has ever made in his whole entire career. What I find disgusting is that some people are so blind to what Milo says, that they don't even realize who it hurts. And they'll try to justify Milo's every word to the very end with absolute disregard to anybody and anything that Milo's words hurt. Now that's truly disgusting. [1] https://www.google.ca...;*
Milo Yiannopoulos is not an advocate of pedophilia

I. Defining termsDefinition of pedophilia: attraction to pre-pubescent children [1]Definition of pre-pubescent: the period preceding puberty [2]Definition of puberty: when a child's body begins to develop and change as they become an adult. The average age for girls to begin puberty is 11, while for boys the average age is 12 [3]II. Victim of sexual abuse as a minorMilo is a victim of sexual abuse. This is a quote from Milo:"I am a gay man and a child abuse victim. Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest." [4] III. Known for exposing pedophiles Luke Bozierhttp://kernelmag.dailydot.com...;/http://kernelmag.dailydot.com... Nicholas Nyberghttp://www.breitbart.com...;/ Chris Leydonhttp://www.breitbart.com...; IV. ConclusionMilo has never defended pedophiles or child abusers as his reporting history shows. This was nothing but a well-coordinated attack to try to slander Milo, the ammunition to slander him was old footage of a podcast (which happened to have just resurfaced right before he released his book) called the 'The Drunken Peasants.' It would be asinine to suggest that a victim of sexual abuse and a person that has outed several pedophiles over the course of his career is an advocate for pedophilia. It is just disgusting to force a man that was actually sexually abused to resign and forcing Simon & Simon to cancel his book deal over sloppy phrasing, deceptive editing, and some "edgy" jokes about what happened to himself. He has since apologized for the joke.But I do remember when the media praised and made Lena Dunham a modern hero after laughing about molesting her little sister several times in her biography, and guess what? That book is still for sale with no backlash from the mainstream media. Whereas Milo, a victim of sexual abuse over the course of 3 years that makes "edgy" jokes about what happened to him to cope and rationalize his trauma and his career was targeted by almost every mainstream news source in an attempt to destroy his career is just abhorrent.V. Sources1.) https://en.wikipedia.org...2.) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...3.) https://en.wikipedia.org...4.)
Should College Atheletes Be Paid

First of all, I admire how fast you can come up with a substantial argument and type it. Also, I have no way of countering what you said. Thank you for debating with me, it was fun, and also very nice warranting. I had no chance to counter your arguments really. I believe in round 2 you could've used more of what you said in round 3 and less of what you did say because even though it wasn't, it could sound like you're almost proving my point, but you finished it off amazingly. Kudos.
Should College Atheletes Be Paid

That is what I am trying to state. Getting payed will take their eye of the ball and they will not have good grades. Now back to the main topic. So let"s say Title 9 is somehow resolved. Who will pay the players salary. Colleges get money from ticket and TV sales. But also pay big bucks on coaches, recruiting and uniforms. Eventually the bigger colleges will be more fastidious and will the urge pay more money for the better players to attract larger TV contracts and the smaller ones will have less experienced and skilled players, before it was all equal. Then the smaller colleges will see sporting revenue decline and will have to raise fees or could go bankrupt. Ok so how much would you pay? How much would you pay a jaw-dropping, proficious Heisman trophy winning quarterback? What would happen if a player"s performance were to improve during the season. What would happen then? Would those players want more money and try to change to a university that would pay more. Some players will be gasconading about how much they get payed each year. This can agitate other players and cause conflict. Now, you would have players who are more worried about next year"s contracts than they are about passing final exams. And what is going to happen to the Idyllic students who just want to play for the joy of playing and are proud to represent their college. So ladies and gentlemen, let me be clear. I am stating that college athletes should be granted scholarships but should absolutely NOT be paid. Thank you
Should College Atheletes Be Paid

My argument still remains that if college players who have been getting paid are denied their pay, they may be forced to take a job to pay for daily living. This would interfere with your main point: Education. I agree, education is the sole purpose of a university, whether it is athletic or academic. The players do need something to fall back on, and denying them pay would simply increase the probability of them failing in school. Players should definitely focus more on education.
Should College Atheletes Be Paid

Now what about the primary purpose of University, education! That is the dominant part of the school. The player"s tuition is already paid for and they are getting other benefits such as expert coaching and exposure to professional football and basketball scouts, if that is their ultimate goal. BUT if you pay them, it will take their eyes off the ball which should also include getting a university education. What if they don"t make it into the NFL or NBA. . Now they will turn to their chosen university degrees to secure meaningful employment. This is where college athletes need to exercise caution. There have been cases where players have been guided to take easy courses just to keep playing and meet the education requirement but will not succeed with a professional offer and won"t find a good job using the degree and courses they were forced to take. One interesting case is that of Tim Tebow who graduated from the University of Florida with a 3.66 grade point average in Family, Youth and Community Sciences. However this degree does not provide his employment and say if he went back because he didn"t make it in the NFL he wouldn"t have a professional offer because of his the courses they forced him to take.
Should College Atheletes Be Paid

College athletes should be paid. Denying certain athletes pay is wrong, so all athletes should be paid equally. Instead of denying pay to any college athlete, we should simply pay all athletes an equal pay. If we deny these athletes pay that they have been using to live off of, they might have to get other jobs, which could interrupt their education or limit their time playing their sport. All college athletes should be paid equally for their time and effort so they have enough or close to enough to live off of so they can go along with their schedule un-interrupted, and for those who were taking a part-time job before, they could devote their extra time to their education.
Should College Atheletes Be Paid

" It is well known that college sports bring in big profits to colleges and universities in the United states. Specifically the primary contributors are football and men"s Basketball. So, do the players in these sports deserve the big bucks or should they be satisfied with a scholarship that gives them a university degree? But then what about the waterpolo players, or the baseball players, or all of the women"s sports teams. Now think about this, how much would you pay to a powerful quarterback of a football team compared to a women"s basketball point guard. I make this comparison to illustrate my next point. Legality, What about Title 9? Title 9 of the US Civil Rights act of 1964 clearly states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance". So paying only male football and basketball players could cancel federal financing assistance and possibly be considered illegal and stimulate some lawsuits.
Cheese Is Better Than Jalepenos

Pro has the burden of proof Subjective - Pro has to establish an objective way for cheese to be better than jalapenos. This is entirely relevant to preference. For him to make an objective statement that classifies one thing better than the next, he must have an impartial gauge by which to judge them. This is impossible, so for all we know his preference towards cheese is just that, his preference. There are lots of people that like jalapenos more than cheese, thus his resolution is negated because there is no objective measure and his BOP is not upheld. Tasty - Whether pro likes it or not jalapenos are tasty. They have just enough spice to add flavor to lots of dishes and overall have a great balance and aura. Refutations - Pros entire case boils down to Cheese causes diarrhea (which is somehow good) but spicy foods *can* cause heart attacks. Anything can be bad for you if you eat enough of it. Water is great for you but if you drink 10 gallons of it you will die. The same can be said for jalapenos, the negative health effects will never come if you eat properly and in moderation. All of pro cases *rely* on the fact that said person is *abusing* and not eating properly. Not everyone eats like that and does does not take away from the actual food itself. As I said anything can be bad if not eaten in moderation. This entire argument is false Closing - I refuted pros case and he did not uphold his Burden of proof due to the subjective nature of the topic
Cheese Is Better Than Jalepenos

Cheese is so much better than jalape"os because of multiple reasons. The first reason being cheese can help your digestive track. Cheese is a thickening product making symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting and liquid gases. When you eat cheese you make it so going to the bathroom is way easier. Also, certain cheeses can whiten your teeth and make your breath smell delicious. Finally cheese produces serotonin in your brain, which is a chemical that produces joyous or happy feelings in your body and brain. This means that cheese makes you happy and calms you down a ton. An additional set of facts is that cheese is very nutritious and filling. Also cheese give you dairy, vitamins and salt nutrients. Jalapenos aren't as good for you. Heart attacks are known to be caused by spicy fruits like jalapenos and other peppers. When eating Jalapenos people have been known to go blind because of its very acidic juices. These spicy fruits eat away at your teeth enamel, and give you horrifyingly bad breath. Also, they are a greater choking hazard then cheese. All in all cheese is like Jalapenos over lord.