BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Exams are not really helpful....

Every time your brain is stimulated, your life improves by 32%. Clearly, if you were an employer and were hiring staff, you would be wise to select the individual/s who were best qualified to do the work you want and this is done through examining all of them through exams or tests. Concentration is what is lacking in this generation. Exams doesn’t mean one has to sit for long to study but a complete concentration in what one is studying is what is needed. This exams are needed to keep one’s brains active and occupied. The relaxation you get after an exam is something that is a must to experience.
Exams are not really helpful....

Exams are why they are studying Many students are studying becuase exams. If we don't have exams, why would we study? Also, we can know our real knowledge, and it is part of practice to not getting too nervous. Through exam, students know thier knowledge, and compare to other students and get cheered up. Many students will not have a chance to know where their knowledge is.Promote competition among students A students will having a war between their classmate because they have to compete with each other with the knowledge they have to see who was the best among them.Other than that,when they compete with each other,it may generate interest and excitement on topic that would be less of interest to a students.Hence,it helps in developing one's personality and confiedenceThank you.
Exams are not really helpful....

Listed below is my point of view about exams and the reasons why I feel that exams are not really helpful: 1. Exams lead to physical and mental pressure on the students. 2. Students can learn more about the topics of their interest if they are not forced to study some particular topics given in the textbook. 3. Exams have some particular pattern and syllabus that need to be studied to pass them. 4. Exams just tell u how well can u mug-answer and not how well u understand the concept. 5. Students are always taught theoretically in a classroom then practically as that is the pattern in which exams are conducted. 6. Due to exams students have to study subjects that are not of their interest. This leads to decrease in the grades which ultimately leads to depression. E.g.- If someone is interested in music and has the potential to be a rockstar someday, then why should he study science or maths and be judged according to his grades!! THANK YOU
Exams are not really helpful....

I believe that exams do not help you at all... they are just for discriminating people... One may not be good in history or science or maths but instead is fantastic at public relations or organizing events or maybe sports.....still this person has to study subjects which he might not need for the rest of his life ...Students study just to pass in their exams, thus it is soon forgotten that education is for development of mankind. Examinations have transformed education into a rat-race where nerd win and creative people lose.
Private schools are better than public ones

My opponent didn't answer.. Ok. I will continue to present my arguments. In most private schools, there is no need to wear uniform. I think this is also a plus, because every student has a chance to form his own style and express his feelings. It is really good, because personality starts to form in school. To sum up I am totally convinced, that private school is MUCH better than public, because after graduating student becomes absolutely form person, who know exactly what he wants from life. He knows all his priorities, and "try to reach his star". Thank you for attention.
Private schools are better than public ones

In this round I want to present more arguments to support my point of view. I am convinced that even if discrimination exists in private schools, in public this problem is more spread and cruel. Nearly in every class there is one person who is known as a snob. This person usually suffers from another classmates, just because he thinks in another way. In private schools everyone respects every person, his thoughts and his rights. Teachers, because of theire professionalism, can find personal method of teaching to make every student understand and remember. "On Grade 11 completion our students are admitted to St. Clare's Oxford International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme without examinations and extra preparation. "(icce-kazakhstan. kz) That means, that alumni of private schools gets more opportunities in the future, which is also a big plus. Also in private schools usually studying students from different countries, that's why private schools celebrates international festivals. This is making studying process very interesting and exiting.
Private schools are better than public ones

I will define better as moral and just. Opening: private schools are not better than public schools in some cases worse that is if you can even qualify for a private school and have the money to go to the school. Since public schools are held by certain laws making them fair and just, and the seperation of church and state as well public schools cannot turn down kids for disablities or gender or race. points: 1: Private schools can discriminate. 2: private schools can teach religious veiws 3:private schools are expensive and most kids cannot get into them.
Private schools are better than public ones

First of all I want to apologise for any mistakes, this debates will be first in my life. Now I want to present my point of view. I am convinced that private schools are better then public ones, and I had some strong reasons for this. To start with I had finished private school this year, but there was a period, when I studied in public one. I was absolutely terrified with it. I didn't like everything there, neither quality of education, nor system. Mostly, because of low salaries, teachers was unexperienced and unable even to calm down classes. Lesson were boring and it was like spending time on nothing. Some students were very rude and aggressive, that's why fights in public schools were very common. In comparison with public schools, private ones are much better. It is an ideal place for any students, because even the atmosphere in this schools is very friendly and pleasant. Teachers are very good, nearly everyone has a professor status. Also, private schools can offer a lot of different classes for the self- development of students, such as a chess club or ballroom dancing studio, where student can get both: nessecary skills and pleasant rest from another subjects. Of course, it is not all advantages of private schools, but I think, that I have made my idea clear. Thanks for your attention.
Obama will be reelected

1. Well Oboma is the incumbent and we know what that means. Incumbents in America are 72% more likely to be reelected than not. So we know that he already has that on his side.2. Plus Oboma has killed Osama. We should make sure we don't confuse the two, but this has caused a spike in his approval ratings. Also, the release of his birth certificate, and bring home the troops are causing him to become more and more popular.3. Also, there are no promising front runners in the Republican race. If there was a strong enough Republican, Oboma could be kicked out. As most people know, Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee both announced they would not run for president to spend more time with their T.V. shows. The votes are scattered and now that the leading two Republicans are gone there is hope for change again. GOBOMA VOTE PRO! http://www.cnn.com...;
God does not Consider Homosexuality a Sin

I will start by saying that God placed different expressions of love, so not all love is the same. It is not up to us to define love. We are simply to submit to God's divine reality in Scripture. Here are the different types of love: 1) The love between God and man - we are to love God first because he created us and saved us. From the beginning, notice how God gave Adam the command to not eat of the forbidden tree. This demonstrates that our love for God is different than for our spouse. Marriages, friendships, and relationships can end, but a relationship with God is eternal. The very first and important commandment in the Torah was "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength." Responsibility to God comes first. This, the love of God is different than the love we have to each other. 2) Love between a man and woman - Gen. 2:24 "therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and Shall become one (Echad) flesh (basar). In Hebrew, Echad is a compound unity. This is the unique relationship between a man and a woman in the flesh which will only last while we are here on earth. We are then called to live by the principles God has set in a marriage. Gen. 4 :1 says Adam "knew " (yada) his wife. In Hebrew thought, knowing someone meant much more than sex, it meant giving themselves completely to the essence of who they are. 3) Family and Friends - finally, we are to honor our parents and share a bond of wisdom with our friends. I argue that while we are to show God's love because he loved us, he established specific boundaries within each human relation such as marriage and family structure. To break them is to rebel against what God has instituted and therefore it is a sin. If homosexuality is against nature then it is only just and loving for him to correct us. I also anticipate that my opponent will go back to the original Hebrew and Greek as will I, so I will respond accordingly in defense of my position, using sources other than language to back up my claims. I'm looking forward to next round
God does not Consider Homosexuality a Sin

This debate presupposes that God is real. For the purpose of voting, please treat God's existence as a hypothetical scenario if you question the validity of His existence. Truth_seeker and I have decided to debate this, and he will accept burden of proof (message me if you want me to adjust the debate in some way). Definitions: --God: The Christian God referred to in the Old Testament and the New Testament. --Homosexuality: Relating to sexual intercourse between same-sex people --Sin: "transgression of the law of God" [1] The resolution of this debate is for con to prove that God deems anyone who practices homosexuality sinful. Round 1: Acceptance only Round 2: Arguments/rebuttals Round 3: Arguments/rebuttals Round 4: Arguments/rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion/rebuttals 72 hours; 10k characters Disclaimer: This debate is not intended to proclaim validity of God's existence. I ask that all viewing the debate respect one another's beliefs and/or practices. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
tax the rich!!!!

Now I would like to first get some things cleared up. My opponent states that we should tax the rich, he proposes no method of doing so, or what amount. Secondly, he uses very vague language when discussing the "rich fat cats. " For reference this [1] is a rich person. His claim "all the rich pepl nd give the $$ to the poor. " Which I am assuming roughly translates to, "the rich's taxes should be re-distributed to the poor. " I think that this would not be a good idea because America is based in the doctrine of Capitalism. Capitalism is defined as, "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. " [2] Americans have the right to make money. Without companies being able to compete there would be no reason to improve products. Why should I try to make my product better and make more money if the government will just take the extra money I make from producing a better product. Without competition, there is no incentive to work harder. I am interested in what my opponent will say back and await it eagerly. [1] . http://sharequotes.us... [2] Google Search of Capitalism Definition
tax the rich!!!!

we shuld tax the rich!!!! all the rich pepl r greedy fat cats!!! alot of peopl in us r poor so we should tax all the rich pepl nd give the $$ to the poor i am poor and so r alot of pepl i no, and its not fare that we r poor we were just born lik this but rich peopl make $$ by being evil and they horde all ofit so we should tax the rich and give the $$ to peopl lik me who r poor
video games help

I cannot but agree that SOME video games really do improve some of these skills. But these are obviously not the overly popular video games. Your found research is solid, so I'll try to argument why the video games most people play are not having these benefits. Call Of Duty series have an overly popular online mode, which is known to come with alot of stress. This game is easily the most-bought game yearly. In these games, children obviously learn alot less than they could elsewhere. While I have no research to contradict what you say, I think everyone knows that the best games are challenging and obviously aren't much of a "relief" from stress. The fast-paced action in CoD rather provides the gamer with alot of frustration everytime he is killed, obviously quite alot of times daily. Emotionally, you could only see it as a break from work. Not some kind of therapy that would make you suddenly feel better, because just like watching a movie, the only thing it does is make you focus on something else. That is, ofcourse, the distraction you spoke of. But is it the best way to distract someone from pain? I believe that here, gaming is only good for those exceptional cases that really need aid like the ones with diseases you named before. This does not prove that video game is good for common, healthy people. It proves that they are useful medically, but they don't provide "help" for healthy people. Then, you said that the fast-paced action is good for visual capabilities. Numerous amounts of friends that i have, end up crying if they play too much. You focus on a limited area, and your eyeballs barely move. That can't be good, can it? But again, only for people who already have medical problems. Another argument you gave for vision improvement, was that facial recognition went better etc. But is that really a necessary thing? I wouldn't count this as a big advantage when seeing the disadvantages. Decision-making skills: can't deny it, but in this case, video games only make your reaction time faster rather than thinking more clear. In real life, most decisions don't have to be made in an instant. Then, you talk about happiness. without doubt, video games are one of the most fun inventions ever. I can't argue here. Lastly, you speak of research why gaming improves mental abilities. The research clearly states that ANYTHING requiring mental energy does that, though. So, there must be alternatives. - personal addition I notice that you simply copy and paste researches you have found on the internet. They clearly are articles in favor of gaming, but not entirely objective. When talking about health, the cons should be mentioned, that occur to ALL people: their backs are bent, in a bad position; they sit still for hours, and ofcourse, they barely do any sport.
video games help

I, too am a video gamer. And I cannot but acknowledge whatever research you got this from. I'm glad that it does something good as well. The unfortunate thing is that online video games create an element of competition amongst friends, mostly combined with the loser being laughed at. It can be really frustrating for gamers, they can get mad to such a level there is simply no fun left. Not only that, but they achieve nothing in life. The amount of gamers that make a living off gaming (on youtube, competition...) is so small, yet when talking about popular franchises; some players really put many hours into them. I believe everyone knows examples of people that waste too much time gaming, but ofcourse, it's only waste when you're not having fun! (to a limited extent of time, ofcourse). Not only that, but video games also cost alot of money these days. They are simply too expensive. These were the elements that I find disadvantageous to gaming. In reply to your arguments, I cannot refute that they help in a medical way. Only about the "fighting spirit" I can say that there are some bad sides to this. Adult males playing video games will, unlike kids, be taking a blow to the head less serious (movies are to blame too) and that might result in street fights happening more often - with the disastrous consequences.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

This discussion is about Climate Change Anomalies from the years 1900 to 2200 (see comments section), and whether they are anthropogenic. Anomalies are deviations from "schedule" weather cycles, and can include both hot and cold extremes, making "global warming" only half of this discussion. So, right off the bat, temperature anomalies began rising just after the year 1900 [1]. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />As shown in the following chart [2], this corresponds closely with a recent rise in CO2 emissions. This chart shows that CO2 levels have always travelled in cycles, but broke their most recent scheduled downward cycle to reach their highest level in over 400,000 years. In a sense, one might say nature did half the work on CO2 and the human race took it from there. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />Correllation is obviously not causation, but the mechanics that link CO2 to temperature have been well documented. Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects: A Review [3]CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />Oceanic Greenhouse Effects: A ReviewThe oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. However, before the oceans can truly begin warming, the ice caps have to melt. . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...; />And as we can see here [4], though the ice caps have shown about a half-century lag behind the thinner, more responsive atmosphere, they are roughly 1 million square kilometers smaller than they ought to be, as of 2014. It appears that climate anomalies are closely associated with CO2 levels, that CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic and will continue to be so until the next 'natural' CO2 spike roughly one hundred thousand years from now (chart 1), and that the greenhouse mechanisms behind all this are straightforward and established. 1. . http://climate.nasa.gov...2. . http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. . http://climate.nasa.gov...4. . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...
Isreal has a Right to Exist.

My opponent claims, "No part of accepting a debate entails accepting the opponents definitions or interpretation of definitions."Yet the DDO tutorial states;"Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions."http://www.debate.org...Round 2 was where my Case started"Case - The opening arguhttp://www.debate.org... for a position."http://www.debate.org...My opponent dropped my entire case"Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round."http://www.debate.org...My opponent claims, "It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising Palestine, its independence until a separate state had been set up within its boarders."But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. The PNA was not created until the Oslo Accords which was when Israel affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government, in Gaza and the West Bank; Israel still holds all authority not delegated to the PNA, in Gaza and the West bank.Israel has a right to exist, and the State of Palestine can only come into being if the PNA can agree on borders with Israel.
Isreal has a Right to Exist.

"My opening case being 100% true" Considering the number of fallacies you have committed, even if your argument was true you would not have represented it well here today. You are attempting to find a loophole which allows you to conduct a debate solely on historical evidence in your favour by claiming that the opponent must agree with your evidence and its source in order to conduct a debate with you. In practice all this means is that you never find out how wrong you are. Debates don't have any preconceptions for this very reason. Also, even if israel had a legal right to exist, this does not imply that the law is what is logical. It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising palestine, its independence untill a seperate state had been set up within its boarders.
Isreal has a Right to Exist.

Well, it seems my opponent as wasted round 2 of the Debate attacking the Guidelines of the Debate that he has agreed to by accepting the challenge is the 1st place. Since my opponent has dropped my entire opening case, we must assume that it is true. My opening case being 100% true, means that Israel has the Legal Right to the borders mentioned aboveAnd the PNA has no borders, until Israel comes to an agreement with them.Because Israel has Legal borders, Israel has a Legal right to exist.