BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
homework

If I could summarize the Con's Round 4 arguments, it would be like the following: Homework causes family disputes. Still no rebuttals on the Pro's (my) arguments. So I am still left with refuting the rest of the Con's statements.However, this round, there is some truth to what the Con says.But once again, I'm forced to bring up the matter at hand of this debate. The Con argues that homework is more bad than good.Therefore, I can only provide evidence that homework is generally more beneficial for the student.As a matter of fact, homework pays off!The benefits are the obvious: It helps children develop positive study skills and habits that will serve them well throughout life Homework encourages children to use their time wisely It teaches children to work independently Homework teaches children to take responsibility for his or her work [1] Besides any disputed educational effects, the latter are reasons homework is beneficial for all children, no matter how old, how well they do, or how much they struggle.Study habits, time management, independence, and responsibility are characteristics that all people need to progress in life, for whatever career path they choose to take. Yes, it is true, homework causes some stress and may result in family disputes. (But not make kids fat. Read this inaccurate and irrelevant article, and you'll understand why I don't buy it. [2])Yet, it can be argued, and I am arguing, that the general benefits outweigh any handicaps. Not only that- but I guarantee that in a majority of the cases in which students are becoming less active or belligerent over homework, the parents are to blame. When students have massive amounts of electronic games or television to watch, why expect them to do homework instead. If every parent were to remove the distractions from the household, then you would have the select few students that genuinely struggle with education and the few situations where homework actually hinders the student pyschologically. In conclusion, homework is generally good and helps more than it does hinders.Thanks for the debate willtreaty1156, I understand this is your first.Vote Pro![1] Top 14 Reasons Why Homework is Important - e-Skool. (2010, October 27). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://blog.eskool.ca... [2] Hey Teachers , Ban Homework and You Will Have Less Fat Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://www.datehookup.com...
homework

As pro said or quoted, some people can do well at homework and it helps them, yet there are those that homework harms them because they can't do that well as those who excel. Which makes them feel bad which makes them fall down from other classes. Moving on; Another one of the many harms of homework is family time. Kids spend around 8 hours in school, when they get home it"s around 4 o"clock. Then they have to do homework which can take up to two hours, more if the student resists. Then they have dinner which is stressed if the child resisted on homework, because the child and parent might both be done with each other. Then they have to go to bed. The site "Educational Leadership," states "Homework squeezes family life. All parents have educational agendas for their children. They want to pass on their cultural heritage, religious beliefs, and important life skills. They want to teach their children how to be good citizens and how to share in the responsibilities of running a home. More homework makes parents put their own agendas on hold even as they often struggle to help their children cope with homework assignments. Additionally, families need time to constitute themselves as families. According to a 1998 survey by Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of parents reported having a serious argument with their children over homework, and 34 percent reported homework as a source of stress and struggle. Parents often have conflicting feelings about homework, viewing it as a way for their children to succeed but also as imposing serious limits on family time." This also raises another point of view about family issues. Many kids and parents have "heated," arguments about homework. Lets say that a student gets home and they don"t want to do his/her homework. Then the parent tells them they have to better get it done now or they're going to lose privileges. So now the kid"s mad and the parent"s feeling frustrated at the kid, and now they have to sit down and do homework together for over an hour. Which won"t go well, for either of them. Then from this point it could lead to bad feelings between them which could separate them .
homework

So, now, the Con presents his argument that homework causes kids to become fat. And who else in the world would dare to make such a dramatic accusation?China. (Chinese media, to be more precise) [1]Not only does the Con make a strangely inaccurate statement, he also provides inadequate evidence to prove his point. Other than the fact that he gave us a nice poem that describes the daily life of a student in a school year. I would also like to remind the Con that the purpose of school is to learn. To learn academically, in math and science, in grammar and history. To learn socially, forming relationships that last years. To learn emotionally, and how to deal with problems as they are and work with what you are given. But most important to this debate: the purpose of school is to learn responsibility. Homework is important! To refrain from being redundant, I will not repeat my main reasons for the importance of homework from Round 1.However, I will return to refuting the Con's arguments, if he will not refute mine.Because the Con provided no evidence for his argument that homework causes obesity, I undertook some careful research of my own. To my surprise, I came across an American website that argued in favor of the Con. Also to my surprise, this article I had found was the exact one the Con used in Round 3, called 'Our Family World'. [2]If anyone would like to read for themselves, even the author of this article is against banning homework completely!She says, " The importance of homework is debatable. Some children excel without homework, learning what they need to learn during school hours. These kids do great on tests whether they have homework or not. Others do need the extra practice at home to help in sink in more. Some kids simply learn better in their home environment. Perhaps banning all homework isn’t the solution. Something needs to give, though! "[3]I will wait for the Con to provide his arguments for the next round with evidence, and I hope that he will also give his rebuttals to my arguments. From there, I will give more rebuttals and conclude my reasoning.[1] Homework makes children fat. (2015). Retrieved May 27, 2015, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... [2] Does Homework Contribute to Childhood Obesity? - Our Family World. (2013, May 9). Retrieved May 27, 2015, from http://www.ourfamilyworld.com...[3] Ibid.
Money is the most important thing in life

Well my opponent has forfeited the second round, sad, i thought this would be a great debate but i guess not. Since you haven't said anything i suppose i win this round but i'm going to say it any way. there are many more important things in life such as tree's, relation ship and education. There is a way to get each of these things for free. these things are far more important than money. these are a few minor examples that i'm using, i will save the best for later.
Communist's moral goals

Capitalism offers people a better quality of living than they otherwise would be able to afford, but enable to get something out of the system, you need to put something into the system. Enable to not be a hobo, you need a house, and houses require resources to build and maintain, thus you must provide those resources, because they have to come from somewhere, and you are the one who is benefiting from them being employed. This is entirely reasonable and nothing to complain about.
Communist's moral goals

In a capitalist society I as the proletariat am required to work long hours in terrible conditions for the privilege of not being a hobo. Also, the proletariat is not a Roman people, but the oppressed. I would NEVER take anyone's money I would BURN it. Capitalism degrades the common working man into "time's carcass", a being only worth what it can produce. You claim I am ignorant, I have read both arguments both the communist manifesto and the works of John Locke.
Communist's moral goals

You honestly don't know what you're talking about, no one is forced to work in capitalism, the exchanges are volluntary. The poor aren't enslaved, and the proletarians were an ancient Roman group. Capitalism doesn't steal people,it doesn't steal anything, that's communism. Stealing is defined as taking someone elses property without their permission, i.e. stealing the means of production or someone elses money, not turning a profit, that's production.
Communist's moral goals

What can be put down to progress? Under Comunism progress is impossible as private propery would be abolished. Even if all the wealt was equaly distributed in 1880's everyone would be living in conditions that today we would define as abject poverty. Preventing progress and stiffling the progress of opulence is not moral, had we adopted this idea- can you imagine what our quality of living would be like if our industry were at the level it was 100 years ago?
Communist's moral goals

There is no 'poor who remain poor,' someone in America working for 7.25$ a hour is still better off than a poor person would have been 100 years ago, the poor have been getting richer and richer due to capitalism.If you told someone in 1924 that you owned a car, ate chicken regularly, earned 7.25$ a hour, and were able to afford 5 sets of cloths, they'd think you were one of the super-rich, but this quality of living is available to someone working for minimum wage.
Communist's moral goals

This debate is on the validity of the claims of the communist manifesto; is there a oppressed people in today's society? I believe there is; the world has three peoples the poor who remain poor, the middle class who fight to not be poor, and the rich who feel the need to become endlessly richer. This process of competition endlessly screws the poor. They are considered fodder to be ripped off. Those who resist are branded radical leftists, or communists.
Dead children are still sexy

Dead children are still sexy A 5 year-old girl got hit by a car She died on a spot I asked for her parents To give me her body So I could have sex with her They refused They called me a monster They have another daughter Who is alive Do they want me to have sex with her instead Your daughter is dead, She cannot feel pain When we have sex, She won't mind And I will like it a lot So I won't have to have sex with children That are still alive Please think of the children Children who are alive If you give me a dead child I will be satisfied I won't go for children that are still alive So I beg you Please think of the children Be the good parents And give me your deceased daughter She didn't have sex during her life Let her have sex during the death
Peter Tosh is better than Bob Marley

My opponent has forfeited the final round. As Pro, he has an obligation to uphold his burden. He has failed to do so because of this forfeit. I have shown via record sales, general reception, financial success, post-wailers success, and several other means that Peter Tosh is not better than Bob Marley. Additionally, because my opponent forfeited, I extend all arguments and rebuttals as they currently stand unchallenged. I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and am glad that I could serve as the knight who defended the honor of the late and great Bob Marley. Thank you, once more.
Peter Tosh is better than Bob Marley

The first argument I will make is that Peter Tosh was better musically. During his childhood Peter taught himself guitar by just watching a man on the street play. He can also play keyboard. In the beginning the Wailers were a vocalist group until Peter taught Bob and Bunny how to play guitar. Peter Tosh can also be argued the better songwriter since he wrote lots of The Wailers original music and Bob Marley's best music ( according to Rolling Stone Magazine) were the ones co-written with or written by Peter Tosh ex. Get Up Stand Up. While Peter Tosh didn't have Marley's commercial success he was known worldwide during and after his tour with The Rolling Stones. One more point I would like to make is popularity does not mean quality hence Justin Beiber and Lil Wayne (two musicians considered by many terrible in their gene yet sold millions and receive awards.
Peter Tosh is better than Bob Marley

I believe Bob Marley is a better Reggae artist than Peter Tosh. My opponent has stated that he believes his position due to unbiased reasons. The BOP is on my opponent to show how his reasons, when stated, are unbiased. My opponent must also overcome any arguments and rebuttals I make, in regards to my efforts of showing how Bob Marley is a better Reggae artist than Peter Tosh. I will show how Bob Marley is a better Reggae artist by utilizing record sales, general public reception, music industry awards and accomplishments including peak chart positions. I believe everyone can agree that debates such as these fall into the realm of subjectivity. I will strive, while utilizing the resources I've listed above, to show the audience why Bob Marley is a better Reggae artist than Peter Tosh. My opponent, as Pro, may begin his arguments first.
witch disney movie is better Frozen or The lion king

I've only got 500 characters for this, I'm going to use Rnd 5 for rebuttal, and these rounds for points. On IMDb, where users and professional critics vote, Frozen received 7.9, the Lion King got 8.5 On Rotten Tomatoes, (ditto)Frozen received 89%, the Lion King got 90%. On Metacritic (ditto again) Frozen got 74, the Lion King got 83. Seeing a pattern yet? Admittedly, Rotten Tomatoes showed a miniscule difference, but enough. Every review site I could find, Frozen was lower that the Lion King.
witch disney movie is better Frozen or The lion king

'the characters in frozen are cute and amazing and funny' Prove this. I will be focussing mostly on the villains in this argument, so I'll go for it. Prince Hans: Makes attempt to win heroine over, then traps her locks her etc. Punched in face, and then disappears. Scar: Is clearly bitter, and then his plot takes a turn when he kills the father of the hero. Is then defeated by hero in battle. As you can see, the charcters in the Lion King are clearly more developed than in Frozen.
witch disney movie is better Frozen or The lion king

My opponent's claims are nonsensical; 'The reason is that the plot is amazing' Please provide proof of this 'and no one dies at the end' And this is a good thing because? 'At least all the song in Frozen are song (sic) we cant at least we can remember' My opponent is doing nothing more than rambling. We can't at least we can? I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say. In the next round, I will be making the point that The Lion King has better characters than Frozen.
The Movie "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was a good adaptation of the book.

Greetings and thank you for this debate! :) This debate will be on whether or not "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was a good portrayer of the book. "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" refers to the Fox production, rather than the BBC film. My job will be to show that "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was, in fact, a good portrayer of the book and did a good job representing it. Thank you for your time and I look forward to a great debate.
God is not real

One thing I think about is the fact that so many religions bash homosexuality. If your supposed god and jesus "love everyone", wouldn't that mean that a vast majority of these churches are sinning? It is true that many religions and churchs are not as friendly to some people as they should be. But all I can say to that is that none of that is God's fault. That is the fault of the people in the church. We are all created equally and should be treated so. To quote what my youth minister said the other day (ironic that he said this too with you saying this lol)"If we look at anyone who walks through these doors with distain, whether they are homosexuals, drug addicts, drug dealers, whatever! If we look at any one of them with scorn, shame on us. Because we have no right to judge. We are imperfect too." You also said that the churchs are sinning when they "bash" people. Yes, people in the church sin. That's because we're human... we ALL SIN!Romans 3:23--- For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.I would like to move onto my points now. God has proven his existance with the bible. The bible has been scientifically proven to be true. The Bible talks in Exodus about how, with the help of God, Moses parts the Red Sea so that God's chosen people may walk across on dry land. The God closes the sea, trapping the murderers and their horses. This has been proven with evidence found IN the Red Sea. http://www.wnd.com... Not long ago most scientists considered it ridiculous to believe that God actually created our world. Many still feel that way today. But while the majority of evidence at one time appeared to favor evolution, this is no longer the case. A growing list of scientists believe that special creation offers a more consistent explanation of the scientific evidence than the theory of evolution. New findings, as well as a re-evaluation of older data, are often putting evolutionists on the defensive. Many are beginning to see how much faith is really necessary to accept the evolutionary theory of origins. (This comes STRAIGHT from mcdonaldroad.org)
Why don't people want to believe in God

Ok I see, they're forceful upbringing made you not want to take part in Christianity anymore this happened to me as well it's one of the reasons why I don't want to go to church anymore but can you please quote passages in the Bible where it says kill rebellious children, you shouldn't cut your hair and you should marry your rapist also about stoning gay people also they could have been showing you the wrong Bible version. btw if they're any parents who are reading this and force your child to go to "church" or camp or anything religious you could be pushing them away from you and the religion just saying from my experience and missbailey8's experience I would suggest asking them if they want to come to church if not try and encouraging them to come to church tell them why they need Jesus and salvation "when the time is right" also use the (KJV) I believe that the earth is around 6,000 year's old it definitely isn't millions-billions of years old if it is then how come there isn't more people on the earth if you look at human population growth rates you would be able to calculate around 4500 years of human population growth just one of many reasons why I don't believe that the earth is older than at least 10,000 year's. The bible is talking about two sons they've had in particular because one had killed the other also when God came to Cain and Cain said whoever finds me shall kill me Genesis 4:14 Behold, you have driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from your face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that finds me shall slay me. This implies that there are more people on the earth (Adam and Eve had more children) also they lived for 900+ year's they could have had a lot of children in that time. I think people have misunderstood the bible for one some people have been taught the wrong way and (or) people has had someone special taken away from them and they blame God for it forgetting that everyone has to go at some point we all won't be here forever I believe that there is a God and I believe that there is a life after this and I hope we all go to the right place. Thank you have a nice day everyone LOVE YOU ALL X :)
Why don't people want to believe in God

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. I'll explain why I don't believe in God. Note: I don't have anything against anyone who does believe in God. As long as you aren't hurting anyone then you're perfectly fine with me. To be honest, I never believed in God. I know a lot of atheists who used to believe and then something happened or they just realized they didn't think any of it. I never did, even as a child. I grew up in a religious household with a Christian mother and a Mormon father. They always took me to church when they were together. They made me join a church camp and read my Bible cover to cover. They tried to force me to believe but I've never had any faith whatsoever. I knew I was an Atheist before I even knew the word to describe myself. I don't want to believe in God because of all of the crazy passages saying things like a woman should be forced to marry her rapist, you can't cut your hair, kill rebellious children, so on and so forth. I also don't want to believe because I'm a lesbian. The passages about stoning the gays didn't exactly make me want believe in God. Another reason is that there is too much evidence against God ever really existing. The world definitely isn't just 6,000 years old. Also, if Adam and Eve had just two sons and they never had kids with Eve then how did we get here? Did they commit bestiality that was never written in? If so, that isn't possible for anyone to have a human-animal hybrid. Anyway, my point stands. Before this turns into a hyper aggressive religion debate, I'll answer the initial question. Why don't people want to believe in God? I think all of the reasons above, actually. I don't think it's that they don't want to believe, but more that they just don't due to conflicting information and science. As much as everyone wants to believe in, say, Santa, some people just can't believe because of opinions and evidence against it. Thank you.
Why don't people want to believe in God

Why? I don't understand what you mean. The debate is called why don't people want to believe in God if you're an atheist or agnostic you're supposed to say why don't you believe in God and/or say why it's not obvious that he exist, that's why I put the the title as "why don't people want to believe in God. Btw it's not a debate it's more of a discussion.
should gum be allowed in school

I shall begin with my counterarguments. (cuz i dont have much to say lately anyway :P) "gum should be allowed in school because you might be hungry and need something to chew on. " This is easily replaced by other foods like chocolate and other foods that u can get in the canteen. Gum doesnt satisfy hunger anyway and ingesting gums are bad for your health. My arguments: 1. The gums doesnt get properply disposed. Gums get literally placed in places that shouldnt be there. Examples: Under desks, bathroom walls, people hairs, etc. Banning gum from school will prevent these litters. 2. Its rude. While in middle of a class, where silence is appropriate, if you were to chew gum, its very rude. The constant sound of you biting on it distracts others. Yes, it may help you, but its no excuse if it distracts others. I await my opponent's response.
it should be against the law for women to be topless in public

it appears that our point of disagreement comes down to your view that "we should do what the majority wants if it doesnt infringe on basic rights". other things you've said i may concede to, but i disagree with this premise of yours. first of all, you havent proven that to be true and 2nd, with your view in practice, you would have many of these kinds of scenarios:1. X doesnt hurt anyone and banning X does not noticeably improve anyones life.2. a majority of society has irrational prejudices against X, so X is banned.3. because it is banned, people are harmed (jailed) for doing something that isnt harmful. it also causes harm by wasting tax dollars from law enforcement, trials, and jails. this money could be put to good use where it actually helps society.why should we have a law that causes harm and doesnt even help in any way?