BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework Should Be Abolished

Firstly, let me define the important terms. ~Homework: work that teachers give their students to do at home ~Abolished: to end an activity or custom officially The argument I will be saying in this round is: ~homework is beneficial to children in moderate amounts And in Round 3 I will be stating that: ~homework enables school days to be shorter Then in the final round, I will be doing a rebuttal of my opponents well-meaning, but perhaps misguided views. Firstly, homework is beneficial to children in schools, as long as it is in moderate amounts. I, as team opposition, understand that in large amounts, homework can overload the child and can be very stressful. But when moderated, homework can be extremely beneficial. The most common benefit of homework is the obvious, improvement in academics. "Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses. But, according to a study on the research, they did find a positive relationship between standardized test performance and the amount of time spent on homework." This source obviously shows the correlations found in tests. However, doing homework has a lot of less-know benefits for children "Pryor-Johnson identifies four qualities children develop when they complete homework that can help them become high-achieving students: responsibility; time management; perseverance; and self-esteem. While these cannot be measured on standardized tests, perseverance has garnered a lot of attention as an essential skill for successful students. Regular accomplishments like finishing homework build self-esteem, which aids students" mental and physical health. Responsibility and time management are highly desirable qualities that benefit students long after they graduate." My source clearly demonstrates my point. Whilst the general public may not know these benefits, they are there, improving the child's work across the board. So, as you can clearly see from these arguments, and the sources I have provided, homework should not be abolished because it is beneficial to the children who do them. Sources: ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://education.cu-portland.edu... ~https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Evolution is a religion.

So when thinking in terms of proposed ideas or suggested explanations for things based on other various similar things but that are not directly related says that we may be closer to the truth . Until we come to absolute truth , what evidence is there to convince us otherwise to go with something or not ? To have confidence or trust in anything basically. The evidence may be little to just about but until 100% confirmation is reached, a person won't know something to be the case. However they may feel to believe in whatever the subject is . They certainly have and are left with that option. To each one it's personal, unique and exclusive . Many may look at the word science or hear the word experiment and think nothing beyond the face value of evidence. The evidence , the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence so help you, etc. . Don't always perceive things in one context . Be prepared to examine the circumstances in how other things may apply to the situation
Evolution is a religion.

Likewise for those who say it should be taught in school, ask those individuals why it should be taught in school . The response may be "well because it's a religion". Well, why should or shouldn't a religion be taught in a building structure and institution known as a school ? What is the goal of teaching or not teaching a religion at all? What is the result for doing such a thing or not doing such? See these are very relevant direct questions for the ones making an argument for evolution being a religion. Then concluding by saying "evolution is a religion, so therefore rid it from our schools. Don't teach it to our kids. It's not fact, just like everything taught in history class is not fact and you teach that to our kids." That very well may be their argument. The individual(s) of course, that is making the statement(s) in regards to having the theory of evolution vacated so to speak . Depending on the definitions these individuals use, it may very well be the case. I would allow them to expound upon that. Is evolution a religion? If we are mentioning the one with the definition that is proposing the explanation for all origins/genesis of all living-organisms because there's more than one definition for the word evolution, for the meaning of the one detailed above, yes evolution is a religion . It can be thought of as a religion and or treated as such .That is if one is honest , analytical and open-minded to consider it to be anyway.
Evolution is a religion.

Yes evolution is a religion.It can be thought of as a religion and or treated as such . Why is that ? Well when we break down the theory which it's assumed that this is what the topic statement is referring to , the theory of evolution , it's just that. It's a very detailed exposition of a hypothesis that hasn't concluded to be fact. Until it is fact , what can one do with the information? It depends on the individual mindset. Some may choose to BELIEVE the information even though it's not fully accounted for. Some may "stay on the fence " while others may disbelieve for whatever cause . Now what is a religion ? Religion is a belief system . A faith mixed with a practice or practices of some kind in some versions. So one may believe in evolution or the theory of evolution and the practice or work of believing in such a concept. Now to those who say it should not be taught in schools, ask those same individuals why should it not be taught in school. (Will have to continue thought in R2.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

What? These men run their church itself and are supposed to be examples to Catholic followers. I for one do agree with the moral messages presented by Jesus Christ, but for God's sake you can't honestly say that the Catholic church have been the beacon of hope for Christianity and a prime example of how to run a religious organization. Infallible, impeccable, it doesn't matter because the men who were and are in charge of these things RUN THE CHURCH.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

impeccable v infallible. that is, bad acts of men, are not teaching of the catholic church. it never taught as doctrine that they should have been killed, or that priest should molest or be allowed to or etc etc. even popes can sin... and that churches people can sin too. just like the apostles sinned, yet were able to pin the bible. (which many consider infallible) again, there's a difference ebtween impeccable and infallible.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

I'm pretty positive that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself before. And if you say they haven't, you can't deny that the Church did spend around 400 years or so murdering, raping, and pillaging vast amounts of people for the simple reasoning of not being a Catholic. That is contradictory to the message of Jesus Christ in itself. And let's not forget how many Catholic Priests have been accused of child molestation, and that's not even mentioning the ones that have been convicted. I'm not the most knowledgeable person there is when it comes to statements that Popes have made, but I'm pretty sure the deeds of the Church as a whole organization are beyond the realm of contradiction to their supposed beliefs.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

a contradiction in teaching is what must be shown, and you have not shown it. all you have shown is that the church is full of sinners. as i said... the apostles sinned too. does that mean we dont follow the bible? peter denied Jesus three times... was that a beacon of hope? nope. still read the bible though. and it doesn't have anything to do with contradictions in teachings. the pope could go on a shooting and raping rampage but it don't change anything. teachings are what matter, do as said, not as done. it seems like your response is mostly visceral, knee jerk. in response to the crimes of the church. impeccable v infallible. there's a difference. a contradiction in teaching is what must be shown, and you have not shown it.
"Cogito, Ergo Sum." Makes since.

So self-fulfilling prophecy of the fanatic, am I correct? If so I counter with the nature of fanatical belief itself which is often groundless and often counter-intuitive. In the sense that a person believes they are a savior for instance very often in the madmen of the world they do no good, they offer no salvation, and of oft do the opposite. The broken standard for the nature of the claim removes the value of the fanatics "truth" regardless of what they believe. I also counter with the nature of actuality versus behaviors. You are not human because you believe you are human but you are able to believe you are human and assess your own designation because you are. Your ability to choose the fluid roles in life differentiate sharply from the fanatical claim or the astronomical claim in that some things, such as belief that one is a canine, do not operate within the actuality of the situation. In conclusion this is all signs of mental illness and in turn a showing of a failure of sensibility therefore undermining what pro speaks of as sensible by forcing it to be insensible by definition.
"Cogito, Ergo Sum." Makes since.

Sorry, poor planning on Pros part caused FF. First week of Freshman is a little hectic. Cogito, Ergo Sum.= "I think, therefore I am." So my argument is not that if you think you are a god, you can shoot lightning bolts in mid air and have religious followers. But you would make up a way to basically make yourself a god like the Pharaohs. Also like how you see kids being 'adopted' by animals and they end going into those ways like crawling and literally acting like an animal. http://youtu.be... If I believe I am Jesus and I claim to be Jesus, even if no one believes me, I can still think I am the savior. Even a cult in Texas claimed to be Jesus and actually caused quiet the trouble for the U.S. If you believe strongly in something and believe it to be strongly too even after the disapproval of others; that you still believe in it, it would be true. If you think you are human, you are a human. If you think you are a dog (through and through) even if you are not, you think it is, therefore you will try to remake yourself. If you are a man strongly thinking you are a women, then you will become a transgender and change your identity. Even if you started out as a man. Your mandom is now history. I won't add much because I want to see what Con made.
Psychological Egotism is is false

I am glad we have a consensus on the definition, however we may have conflicting views on the part of altruism, which I shall be glad to further debate if my opponent wishes to bring it up in the third round. In defense: There are, undoubtably, events in one's life where one makes a decision based on satisfying one's mind. However, that is not what we are debating. My opponent's position is that every decision is made to satisfy the mind. This cannot be the case, as I shall now attempt to prove, if my opponent does not accept the apathy example. Say we have, Jones, a private doctor practitioner. He is approached one day by a man who stole his wife ten years earlier. Clearly, the man (Smith) has forgotten completely, and the wife committed suicide shortly after running away with Smith. Smith, who is in need of cardiovascular surgery, is one of Jones' new patients. In the operating room, Jones stands with his knife. It would be so easy to make a fatal cut and it would all be over. A slip of the knife, etc. The nurses and techies are new so they wouldn't notice the changes. Jones would just not have to notice, and let Smith slip away. What does Jones do? I'll leave you with that thought: does he follow his subconscious or conscious mind? thanks
Psychological Egotism is is false

========================== RE: DEFINITION REVISION ========================== I accept my opponent's revision of the definition, but I must point out that the wiki article which she wishes to revise doesn't necessarily possess a contradiction. If anything, it is implying that altruism doesn't exist if Psychological Egotism is in fact true. Speaking of rendering of terms: For the remainder of this debate, I shall be referring to Psychological Egotism as "PE" is order to shorten the amount of characters I am using. ================================ RE: People can choose randomly, ergo PE is false| ================================ Basically, the contender is arguing that because people can do things which seemingly have no purpose or rationalization, that people can act without satisfying their own conscious/subconscious, therefore making PE false. However, this is a rather faulty observation to be making as her own examples make it quite clear that the individuals are acting in order to satisfy their own minds. Take for instance Beth in the first example. She has chosen "d." However, from the way PRO has described it, Beth has chosen "d" simply because she is apathetic to the two choices. Her making a decision based upon apathy is satisfying the apathy which she herself possesses either consciously or subconsciously and is therefore upholding my syllogism in favor of PE quite nicely. Not to mention that we must also keep in mind that she wants to play the game of tennis and that merely participating in this game of "chance" will in fact allow her to do just that. Furthermore, one could possibly go further in arguing that Beth simply has a specific bias in favor of one of the letters upon each time she chooses. Nevertheless, I feel that her apathy as well as her desire to play the game are far better explanations. =========================================================================== RE: Decisions of the conscious mind (logic) and the decision of the subconscious (perception) are often quite different. =========================================================================== This is true, but nowhere in my syllogism is this disputed. Rather, it is simply suggesting that one acts based one, the other (hence the use of the "/" But truth be told, it is usually both which one decides to act based upon). Thus, this is merely a matter of mis-clarification and is thus to be dismissed without hesitation. In addition, my opponent's example with Chad is no more relevant. In the end, Chad would decide based on his subconscious, conscious or even some combination of the two (which my opponent seems to agree with). The moment he decides which answer he feels comfortable with will in fact be the very moment he has made a decision to appease himself. I now await my opponent's second round. Later. :D
Psychological Egotism is is false

Greetings to my opponent. I wish her good luck and request that the audience not allow any biases to get in the way of their judgment. With that said, let us begin: DEFINITIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: http://en.wikipedia.org... Note: I would advise my opponent not to rely on the criticisms provided on the page. My previous opponent tried this in my previous debate on this matter and I was more than able to deal with them. I shall make this round short and quick to the point through offering up a pure and simple syllogism which upholds my stance quite nicely: Premise 1: All willing conscious actions are performed based on one's "upbringing" and biological influences. Premise 2: One's upbringing and biological influences is what one's conscious/unconscious mind consist of. Premise 3: One basing their actions on their own conscious/unconscious mind is a means of satisfying it (in other words, doing what it wants to do). Conclusion: Therefore, people only willingly perform acts that satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind. And voilï¿½ . . . an argument in favor of Psychological Egotism. To go into example, let us take into consideration the classic case of a young man helping an old lady across the street. This is generally an example of altruism, but even under cases which are perceived as altruism, the fact of the matter is that helping the old lady is still a case of doing something based on mental influences, thus is an attempt to satisfy the mind. In other words, a self serving action. In laymen terms, helping others puts altruistic individuals in a state of content. With that said, I shall conclude this round and await my opponent's response.
There is no such thing as a contagious disease (2)

I would like to point you back toward the definition of contagious disease, and make it clear that lack of life does not mean that it is not a contagious disease. You are bringing up random facts about viruses, but it bring nothing substantial to the table, I think the issue you have is with the etymology of the words. Please make sure that you address correctly the definition itself, rather than bring in a bundle of information that has no relevance whatsoever in this conversation.
There is no such thing as a contagious disease (2)

Extracted from the book by Arthur M. Baker Awakening Our Self-Healing Body http://www.mednat.org...... "Viruses" Are Not Micro-organisms Even though medical authorities mistakenly attribute to this dead cellular debris the powers of life and malevolence, microbiologists acknowledge that viruses are dead bits of DNA in a protein-lipid membrane coat, although FAILING TO REALIZE ITS SOURCE. As such, genomes are control mechanisms but not micro-organisms as the medical establishment would have us believe, since these so-called "viruses" are merely lifeless fragments of mitochondrial generic debris. Because of this, VIRUSES CANNOT CAUSE DISEASE unless they accumulate as filth and pollute our cells, tissues and circulation upon cellular death. Viruses, then, are dead genomes from disintegrated cells whose cellular membrane is not completely broken down by cellular lysosomes. Genomes have no characteristics of life whatsoever, and are merely bits of nucleic acid material normally recycled through phagocytosis or excreted as waste. Photos of alleged viruses "injecting themselves" into a cell actually show the cell literally engulfing the "virus" or proteinaceous debris. A dent, called invaginarion, then forms and the organic matter is surrounded by cellular substance which closes off, forming an impromptu stomach, and the "virus" disappears. The stomach then fills with powerful lysosome enzymes which digest the organic material, breaking it down into ammo acids and fatty acids for recycling or elimination. This process is a normal feature of cell physiology called phagocytosis (literally, cell-eating)" the routine process of cellular ingestion and enzymatic digestion of bacteria, dead tissue debris and other errant cells. Viruses are merely inert organic material totally devoid of all life qualities and are never seen to act. Photographs purporting to show viruses in action are outright frauds: what is actually shown is an ordinary physiological process of phagocytosis which occurs countless times daily within the body. Remember, according to medical texts on virology and microbiology, viruses have the following un-lifelike characteristics: 1) Viruses have no metabolism"they cannot process food-stuffs or nutriment and they have no energy formation. They are only a template, or pattern of information, as are all genomes. 2) Viruses have no faculties for action of any kind"no nervous system, no sensory apparatus, and no intelligence that may coordinate movement or "bodily invasion" of any kind. 3) Viruses cannot replicate themselves"they supposedly depend entirely upon "obligate reproduction""meaning, reproduction by a host organism, something totally unheard of in all biology.
There is no such thing as a contagious disease (2)

I would like to first point out you are completely dismissing the definition itself. Secondly the reason we cannot cure the "common flu" also known as influenza, is due to the evolution of influenza. it undergoes either an antigenetic shift, or a genetic/antigentic drift. technically each flu do get cured. Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that influenza is a contagious disease. Thirdly, the fact that we cannot "cure" these diseases, does not provide any solid ground to completely dismiss the existence of contagious diseases. The issue with the instigator seems to be with the lack of knowledge of the definition.
There is no such thing as a contagious disease (2)

I would like to use as my example; the common flu or cold. The common flu, can't be cured, no matter what medication, vaccine or other herbs or natural remedies you may take. The documentary - 'Tamiflu'; highlights the ineffectiveness of the so called 'viral anti-biotics'. This is because the medical system doesn't understand the causes of the flu. (Note - All diseases have flu like symptoms.) That's because all diseases really are just the one of two basic problems. That's either - vitamin deficiency or chemical/natural poisoning. The concept that disease is spread from person to person is a total nonsense. This concept was developed by the Victorian Era during the Great Plagues and other smaller epidemics. In the old days, water was supplied by a well, which was situated in the middle of the village. This is still the situation in Africa. (Ebola). every now and then an animal would fall into the well and cause the water to become poisonous. People who lived nearest to the well would start to get sick first. The, others who lived further away from the well would gradually become sick. Thus, was born the concept of the contagious disease by some bureaucrat who worked out that disease spreads from a central point and slowly spreads from person to person. Reference - The Broad Street Cholera Outbreak 1854 - https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com...
There is no such thing as a contagious disease (2)

I would first like to define "Contagious disease": A category of diseases transmittable from a person to another (usually infections) which are transmitted to other persons, either by physical contact (hence the name-origin) with the person suffering the disease, or by casual contact with their secretions or objects touched by them or airborne route among other routes. I would first like to know what definition the instigator is putting forward to view "contagious diseases" are being non existant. Please bring to light what kind of evidence you have to make such a claim Given the mentioned definition, here is a list of contagious diseases https://en.wikipedia.org...