BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Boarding scholars work harder than day scholars

It is not a teachers responsibility to set homework based on a students out of school schedule; teachers set homework they deem appropriate for their classes and the subjects. If a student has many activities outside of school, the teacher does not always know this. Just because a student has a set schedule they must in does not mean they are working any harder or they are producing better quality work. It simply demonstrates that they have a set routine; while students who do not have that set routine can do the exact same quality of work in a shorter amount of time. In my experience of boarding school and day school, there was no difference in the amount of work being set or us, it was whatever we had not finished in class in addition to a poster project, an essay, etc. It was not mountains of work. It was a matter of how long it took you. The amount of work set does not equal how hard you are working. Day scholars and boarding scholars submit work to the best quality they can. If two students are submitting the exact same assignment, the quality of one that was worked on for 12 hours can be a lot worse than the quality of the one that was worked on for two hours. Does that demonstrate that one student worked any harder than the other? Not at all, it simply shows that quality is not dependent on how much time is spent working on a project. Having the parents and friends available as a resource is valuable to many students; these resources provide a source to learn from and work through an assignment, they allow a student to develop extra skills regarding team work and knowing when to ask for help. Having the ability to work independently is important, but knowing when you need help and seeking the appropriate help is more important as life is not about being an island of one.
Boarding scholars work harder than day scholars

Yes, there may be a few kids who can manage their out of school activities with their school work to end up working harder. But is rare. Now speaking from personal experience, when I was a day scholar to start off with the teachers did not set nearly as much homework because we had less time to work due to these out of school factors. Our working times were not regulated, some students had sport then karate and then music lessons leaving no time for school work. The teachers then set homework accordingly to busiest persons schedule, meaning the person who didn't have all the extra-curriculum activities never lifted a finger. Whereas at boarding school the daily schedules of each individual allow for a strict working time (in my case 6:15-9:30 including small breaks), this then forces the students to work for these allotted hours. The teachers also then know that that have to full up these hours with work and therefore set a lot of homework. Now onto the quality of work: When I was in day school the quality of work that we produced was not up to par, mainly because of distractions (i.e TV and cellphones). Due to that the work would be rushed and often not done. The excuses to the teachers would flow freely(because they would have no idea if it was the truth or not) whereas at boarding school the working time is working time! If one was caught on their cellphone or talking it is punishable. Another factor which influences this is: parents, siblings and friends doing the work for them resulting in less of the work sinking in! Boarding school demands you to try think it through and solve the problem yourself before consulting a friend or teacher, resulting in more work being done.
Boarding scholars work harder than day scholars

I have attended boarding school and day school; I believe that day scholars work just as hard as boarding scholars, if not harder. In my experience, boarding school allowed for a specific time for studies to be done; but all other time was of our own free choice. Many students became involved in sports and productions, the time required for these were allowed to be taken from the study time, I saw this is day school as well. However, students at day school have many more obligations outside of their education. I am speaking specifically about teenagers who may have jobs, volunteer, sports, night school, church activities and other activities. These students are required to set their own schedules and learn to manage their time effectively to ensure their school work is done well. Boarding school students have set schedules that they do not manage themselves, they do not gain the ability to manage their time as effectively and do not have to work around events or activities.
Boarding scholars work harder than day scholars

Boarding scholars have set time periods, in which they have to work, if not, they are punished. Day scholars on the other hand do not have these strict rules when it comes to working. Day scholars also have many distractions to face. At boarding school the teachers know that the students have this dedicated time to work and therefore set a decent amount of work for these students. At day school the teachers are more lenient with the work load placed on the students. At home the students are more likely to get help from their parents or siblings meaning they do not work as hard as the boarding student who cannot ask questions during these strict homework times. I speak from experience when saying this (8 years as a day scholar and 4 as a boarding student).
Cigars should be illegal

Thank you Mr. Yugi, for your quick response. First of all, I would like to say that I was somewhat confused by several statements in the first half of this round. "You have to be mentally strong, and say no."-ethopia To whom is my opponent speaking, and what does this have to do with the resolution? "However, there is a way to decrease smoking. By banning cigars, the ban would influence the smokers and would let them know that it is wrong to smoke."-ethopia This is some kind of moral dilemma for my opponent. I personally don't believe smoking is wrong at all, and many people feel the same way. Is it smart? No. Is it wrong? No. This is not a valid argument. "The ban would decrease the amount of smoking, perhaps stopping cigarette production."-ethopia This is absolutely ludicrous, and is not based in reality. "I know that it is their choice, because thoughts run our lives."-ethopia Exactly. The resolution is negated. We have the right to smoke. Whether it's cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipes, etc., we have been given the right to smoke, despite the harmful effects. I already stated that repealing prohibition set the legal precedent for this debate. Furthermore, do you understand how much revenue the tobacco taxes bring in? Cutting that chunk is a horrible idea for a country in recession. "I have refuted all of his main arguments and sub- arguments."-ethopia After careful review, I find not one refutation to any of my arguments. In summation, cigars are, and should absolutely remain legal for many reasons. Are they bad for your health? Of course, but so is alcohol, junk food, caffeine, etc. These are things we choose to indulge in which are all bad for us. Fortunately, we live in a place where the government doesn't make those kinds of decisions for us... or at least not yet. Thank you very much Yumi, and thanks to the readers for your time.
Cigars should be illegal

Now, to refute his last argument: Yes, it is their choice, but education has taught us that cigars are not beneficial in countless ways. You have to be mentally strong, and say no. However, there is a way to decrease smoking. By banning cigars, the ban would influence the smokers and would let them know that it is wrong to smoke. The ban would decrease the amount of smoking, perhaps stopping cigarette production. If we ban it, adults will not have to fight the urge to smoke, because it is illegal, if we ban it. Therefore, if we ban cigars, adults will not have a higher probability of accepting these products. I know that it is their choice, because thoughts run our lives. However, by putting a ban to smoking these cigars, there would be a second thought about smoking these cigars or a nagging feeling that would try to prevent you from buying these items. ==> Conclusion I have refuted all of his main arguments and sub- arguments. He has refuted only a handful of my arguments. I would like the readers to vote for Pro. I thank Mr. Ogden and the readers for their time. Thank you and happy holidays! Sincerely, Yugi
Cigars should be illegal

Thanks Yugi. It is clear to me that my opponent has a strong distaste for tobacco products in general, and I must admit that I am not a big fan either. In fact, I have had several grandparents pass away from smoking related illnesses. It was not easy to watch, and based on those experiences, I choose not to use tobacco. Unfortunately, people still CHOOSE to smoke. It is not in the government power to take that choice. Alcohol is also extremely harmful, but prohibition was repealed and deemed unconstitutional. So you see, the legal precedent has already been set. Adults are given the choice to use these products, they are in no way forced upon the individual. So, while your intentions are good, the resolution is negated. I want to give a very sincere thanks to my opponent for this debate, and the readers for your time.
Cigars should be illegal

Swell! Obviously, this will result into an entertaining debate, compared to some of my other debates. My opponent agrees with my points, but yes, you cannot argue against facts. However, let me refute his arguments. These harms should let the government know that is fine with we abolish cigarettes. After all, cigars are a bad influence. I believe that my opponent agrees with all my facts, except for one. True, cigars do not contain alcohol. I believe that I meant that smoking, while driving, would result into a car accident. It is a bit like drunk driving. If we abolish cigars, less people will smoke, such as: kids, teenagers, and adults. I do not know how abolishing cigars is unconstitutional. However, onto my contentions: Cigars harm the lungs. This results in dying in a painful death. Tobacco causes addiction, so you would not help yourself by buying more and more cigars. In the United States of America's recession, this will cause a decrease in your money storage. There would be limited concentration and movement. You would also have a dull sense of smell or taste. Smoking will lead to having a disgusting smell in your clothes, hair, or house. You might die of cancer from long time smoking. http://quitsmoking.about.com... http://www.buzzle.com... ==> Conclusion As you can possibly see, the cons of smoking outnumber the pros of smoking. Lastly, I thank Gavin and the readers. Thank you. Sincerely, Yami Yugi
Cigars should be illegal

"Cigars should definitely be illegal because it is harmful in many ways. Cigars, in this case, is tobacco. Smoking these means that the owner who smoked will not be able to breath properly. There would be headaches and heart-burns. Long- time smoking would result in colds, bronchitis, heartbeat racing, and an increasing rate of hypertension. These are some of the cons of cigars. There are many more. The cons of cigars outrun the pros of cigars. World Health Organization even states that a cigar ban would be beneficial. Cigars lead to asthma, heart disease, cancer, pregnancy complications, and other problems. By putting a ban to cigars, we would decrease the health problems. Cigars cause mental and emotional harms too. Cigars can also lead to drunk driving. "-ethopia My opponent states many facts in his argument. Unfortunately, none of them are cause for making cigars illegal. In fact, cigarettes are even more harmful, because the smoke is inhaled, where cigar smoke is generally only taken into the mouth and blown out. Simply put, in order to ban cigars, cigarettes would also need to be banned. My opponent also finishes his argument with a very shaky argument. I state for the record, cigars contain no alcohol, and are not ingested,. Therefore, they do not lead to drunk driving. Drinking alcohol, then driving are the prerequisites for drunk driving. Any statement to the contrary is pure fiction. While all this is true, the most important thing to remember is that smoking cigars is a personal choice. The dangers of smoking tobacco are well known in this day and age, so if someone makes the poor decision to endanger their own health, it is not the job of the government to tell him/her it is not permissible. Smoking indoors is almost a thing of the past, and I am all for that, although I disagree with the laws. Afterall, who wants smoke blown in their face while they are eating. However, outlawing smoking altogether(particularly just cigars) would not be constitutional, and is not going to happen.
Cigars should be illegal

Anyhow, let's begin! Cigars should definitely be illegal because it is harmful in many ways. Cigars, in this case, is tobacco. Smoking these means that the owner who smoked will not be able to breath properly. There would be headaches and heart-burns. Long- time smoking would result in colds, bronchitis, heartbeat racing, and an increasing rate of hypertension. These are some of the cons of cigars. There are many more. The cons of cigars outrun the pros of cigars. World Health Organization even states that a cigar ban would be beneficial. Cigars lead to asthma, heart disease, cancer, pregnancy complications, and other problems. By putting a ban to cigars, we would decrease the health problems. Cigars cause mental and emotional harms too. Cigars can also lead to drunk driving. Read more: . http://www.livestrong.com... . http://quitsmoking.about.com... . http://www.livestrong.com... I give thanks to gavin. ogden and wish him and the readers good luck. Happy Holidays! ~Yami
Debating is pointless

By all means, good sir, I love debating. This is just philisophical.This is my rationality behind why debating is pointless:All truly good debates are good debates because they are not absolute.That meaning, opposing forces in the debate could both be correct.There is no right or wrong, it is all perspective.If it is all perspective, the perspective will always be changing.Debates, and their answers, will always be changing.If debates will always happen over certain subjects, and there are no absolute answers to come, debating is pointless.Just because debating is pointless, however, doesn't make it not fun. I love to debate, however I recognize some things we do are pointless.
Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility is a Failed Theology

I would like to take a moment to personally and publicly apologize for my lack of preparation for this round of the debate. The reality of life has denied me the time needed to continue to work on my thesis. To my opponent, I thank you for your patience and your understanding, I assure that I will continue the argument regardless, and make a more in depth rubuttle in later arguments. For now I hope this will suffice.....once again, I apologize, and hope that I can still provide some insight through my following comments. Let us first consider the actions of the Holy Spirit. Numerous times in the Bible, the Holy Spirit has been mentioned and has directly interfered with mortal beings. Being that the Holy spirit is one of the tri-personalities of God, it is not only plausible, but highly likely that the Holy Spirit hold athority among men. We know from Biblical texts that the Word of God was in fact "God Breathed", even though mortal men physically scribed the Bible, the Word itself was inspired through God. From my previous arguments, I debated the fact the because God is perfect all his works are perfect. I think that we need to look at this in a context, specifically the context of salvation. First of all, how can we know we are saved? It is very clear in the Bible that our sins where forgiven on the cross. Now, in order for all the sins of the world to be cleansed by a single sacrifice, the sacrifice would literally have to be a "perfect" sacrifice. In the Old Testament it was common practise for a sinner to slay ox, sheep and goats in order to appease God. However, these animals where unclean, unperfect and would not suffice for an eternal salvation. What God did was provide a perfect sacrifice, In order to cleanse sin. So what's the point? Well, simply, if we believe we are saved then we must also believe in a perfect God, because without a perfect God, we would not be saved. I think we are focusing too heavily on the technicality of the Word, and simply disregarding the basic fundementals of Christanity. If we are to be divided in the opinion that God is perfect, then we are in turn, doubting our salvation, doubting God and doubting our faith. If we so heavily disregard the Bible is unfactual, we are disregarding our entire Religion. The Book of God was granted to humanity so we might be saved, it's not a tool for lies, trickery and misconseptions. It's our means for salvation, something that Jesus died for. So I ask, if we can have faith in salvation, can we not have faith in God's Word? Because if not, then our entire belief system is a flawed doctrine. Thank you for tolerating my very short rant, once again, I hope this will suffice. God be with you, Brother. 1 John 5:13- "I write these things to you who believe in the name of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life
Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility is a Failed Theology

Greetings! I accept your challenge, and hope that I will be able to present my side effectively and persuasively. I am glad that I have been give the position of arguing in favor of an inerrant and infallible Word of God, as I am an Evangelical Christian myself, and fully believe that the Bible is without error. Many thanks for the rule guidelines, this will allow me to question my sources and work on my thesis with an open mind. I certainly hope to achieve a higher level of academic debating skills, and I assure you I will not lean on the "God did It" argument. This will be certainly interesting, as I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian. Of course, since we have a common faith in God, this should provide a nice common ground, so I am very happy to be debating with you for my first official debate. Without further ado, I welcome your opening statement! Cheers!
Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility is a Failed Theology

In this debate, I will be arguing for the proposition that Biblical inerrancy and infallibility is a failed theological concept. By innerancy, I mean that the Bible, as most fundamentalists would say, is free from all contradictions or error in history, science, theology, teaching. etc. By accepting this challenge, you will be arguing that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God, devoid of error. This debate will have five rounds. Round one is for introduction, while round two is opening arguments only. Round three and four are rebuttals and counter-rebuttals while round five is closing statements. Rules: 1. Use well-reputed sources. Tertiary sources with an obvious bent, and poor sourcing themselves, such as Answers in Genesis, cannot be used. You can, however, use the secondary or primary sources that they cite (Assuming they are not citing themselves). This applies to me as well. I will not be allowed to use poor sources like a skeptic blog, skepticpedia, or similar poorly-composed sources. 2. "God did it" in any way, shape, or form, is not an acceptable response. This is included in topics related to canonicity, preservation of texts, etc. 3. Simply rebutting attacks does not prove inerrancy. Instead, you also have to provide arguments, both theological and otherwise, for innerancy. 4. I would like to point out that I am a liberal Christian who believes Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who died to take away the sins of the world. That being, theological arguments are open and viable as well. Good luck!
if religion is wrong, surely satan is not the evil one, and not real

My opponent is clearly not religious and therefore knows next to nothing about a topic that he thinks he can win. I would like him to clarify what this argument is about. Free will? Religion not being true? If you are saying religion is not true then that is correct, but only to you because you have free will, therefore this is an unwinnable debate solely because it is a matter of beliefs. But if I am wrong about what this debate is about then please tell me and please clarify what it is to me.
Homeschooling

Con forfeits.I will post my arguments.1. Can't affordSome reasons are that we just can't do stuff and go into regular schools. You might not have money. You might hate everything except for math. You might hate interacting with other people. No one is forcing people to all go to homeschooling, but you can and it should not be banned. Homeschooling kids can be people who can't afford or be like an average kid. Maybe you are too smart.2. Better TeachingThe quality of teaching will probably be better. You can use tutors or go to academies also. Homeschooling's definition is to not learn at school. Many people believe that they don't know how to teach. However they will be better in these reasons. First of all, the teachers don't care of your progress. They only get you for one year. It is not really important if they have you in your class or not. They do not really care what they do because they are not the baby and son, and gets no credit if they do good things for that child. They will teach like nothing. However these parents want the son to be better at everything and get a better job, so they will do anything to afford him or her.Second of all, you have more time teaching. School is limited. However you can teach always at home. Third of all, you can go more places like to more field trips and learn.3. Hang outYou have more time to hang out with your family. It is important to be friends and be hanging out with your family.Thank you.
Slavery was detrimental to American Society

All of arguments have gone conceded. My opponent provides absolutely no evidence for his vicious claims such as "2/3 of all violent crimes committed are perpetrated by blacks." "70 % of all welfare recipients are black. They are economic vampire sucking the money out of the upper class white AND black families." Moving on, my opponent goes on to state that: "I'm not arguing civil rights but slavery in specific. Why should you get special programs if you are "equal" " There are white people, Asian and Mexicans who also use welfare. Second of all welfare isn't specific to African Americans. Therefore your argument is poorly thought out and false, yet again. Your not against slavery because you think it's immoral you are against it because you are against the idea of integration and diversity. You can try to say whatever you want but this case is inspired by your hatred towards black people and you just continue to prove my point without even realizing it. And the thing is, i don't even need the statistics you demand but can't show yourself. Because my arguments aren't based on false and derogatory claims. I am using logic, something you lack. Even though Slavery was immoral the result in our cultures mixing is not a negative one. Keep in mind that my opponent hates slavery because he hates the idea of equal opportunity and diversity. And even though slavery was a cruel act. The mixing of our cultures is something that should never be taken for granted. It is for these reasons i must negate this resolution.