BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework

"A study proved that homewok can cause anxiety, andger, etcetera." This study was based around elementary school kids, and some studies conflict each other on whether homework is good or bad. This does not prove that students should never get homework in their education. Parents don't always know how to help the student with homework, but the student can still email the teacher or ask about it the following day after doing the best they can on it. As you said, in middle and high school, students can use their study halls and homeroom well by working on their homework and if a problem arises, they can try to contact the teacher whenever the teacher is open that day. Also, study halls do help students have more time after school to do other things. I still believe it helps students learn and see what they need to study and improve upon the most. Below is an article about what parents can do to help with homework. http://memphisparent.com...
Homework

Homework isn't just time-consuming. A study proved that homework can cause anxiety, anger, etcetera (1). Also, it is often said that homework increases grades, but data from the TIMSS showed that the correlation between achievement and the teachers who used homework in grading are negative (1). You say homework should be given when students are struggling. Homework is done at home, away from the person who is most familiar with the curricular requirements and key concepts-the teacher. Parents' assistance might not work; homework causes conflict in a third of families (2). Instead, students can ask their teacher for academic help. In middle and high schools, it can be during study hall. In elementary schools, it can be during class or recess. (1) https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au... (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
Homework

Homework is a necessity when given in moderation. Yes, it does take your time, and I believe that it is not necessary to have homework in every class every night. It should be given when a concept is extra hard, or if students are struggling in general, and classes like math and language arts may need to have homework most nights. Yes, teachers can devvote class time to make sure students are learning, but, agian, this can waste class time. If you never had homework, it would take way longer for teachers to get through the material, and you would not learn as much. Also, groupwork isn't always a great option because the students who need it most would likely slack off and only one person in the group would end up working. Just because homework takes time doesn't mean it should be abolished. I know an accountant that sometimes has to work from home during their own time to finish stuff that they need to do for their work. They can't just skip doing it because it takes their time.
Homework

"Homework is great review that helps students learn."There are many alternatives to homework that can simply be done in class.Since teachers want to see if their students understand key concepts, they can put students in groups, with each group creatively demonstrating the concepts in front of the class. Another alternative is giving students short pop quizzes.I often get more homework than classwork. Homework is time-consuming. In fact, in an article from Stanford News, it stated, “spending too much time on homework meant that students were ‘not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,’ according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.” That last sentence is true. I’ve had to miss family meals and activities because of homework.https://news.stanford.edu...
God most likely exists

Conclusion of my Case:Everything requires a cause, so it logically follows that the universe must have one. This cause is uncaused, as shown by the Pool Table Argument, which indicates that this uncaused cause is the beginnning of the Universe. This is also shown by the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that everything must have a cause, and for something not to completely throws out the PSR, which must be followed. Simultaneous causation is compatible with the First Cause, which refutes Con's statments concerning Occam's Razor. According to statements made within the debate, this First Cause is intelligent, very powerful (or omnipotenct), nonphysical, immaterial, and the creator of the universe that goes beyond space and time. This falls in line with the definition of God. Evolution is refuted via Irreducible Complexity, which leaves one remaining explantion of the universe: God.
God most likely exists

Resolution: "God most likely exists" Burdens: Pro had the greater burden of proof in this debate. As I established in Round 2, the resolution is a fact claim, and also, by Occam's razor, Pro had to prove the resolution true. My burden was to refute Pro's arguments, which would be sufficient for a victory. Arguments: a. PRO: (1) Everything requires a cause; universe requires a cause; that cause is God (unclearly explained how it links to God, since it doesn't properly fit the definition of God; weak argument); (2) there is an uncaused first cause, which is God (not explained how this cause is the cause of the universe, since PSR not warranted or sufficiently explained); (3) evidence of fine-tuned constants suggest God (probability of intelligent design not clearly established); (4) irreducible complexity refutes evolution and evolution is the only sound means to affirm origin of life under atheism. b. CON: Occam's razor suggests God doesn't exist by default, and causation without time requires simultaneous causation; simultaneous causation of elementary particles better fulfills Occam's razor. Outcome: The cosmological argument isn't sufficient since it only proves an external cause, not necessarily God, and fails to account for simultaneous causation. I've shown that the BGV theorem only applies in a universe that is expanding per all reference frames, but our universe isn't such a universe. I've also shown that the causal principle is nonsense and doesn't apply outside the universe. The first cause argument only shows a cause, not necessarily a cause of the universe, and I've refuted the causal principle. I've shown that the irreducible complexity argument is irrelevant, and have refuted the fine tuning argument. Our argument was largely untouched; Pro claims it is a bare assertion, but we clearly elucidated how "efficient causation" presupposes time, and how it's *possible* for God to exist but not *probable. * Occam's razor in itself dropped. Furthermore, none of Pro's arguments proves God as defined.
God most likely exists

PrefaceThis is a debate on the existence of God, a topic I have not debated in quite awhile. Thus, I was pretty excited when Voice told me he was interested in debating the topic with me. The debate has advisers for both sides. Voice's advisers are 21MolonLabe [http://www.debate.org...] and ColeTrain [http://www.debate.org...]. My advisers are n7 [http://www.debate.org...] and BlueDreams [http://www.debate.org...].The debate will have 72 hours for each side to type up an argument, with 4 total rounds and a maximum of 10,000 characters per round. The minimum Elo required to vote is 3500, and the debate's judging standards will follow the "opt-in" system. [http://www.debate.org...] By accepting, debaters consent to the application of this system; by voting, judges agree to follow these standards or have their votes deleted. Full TopicGod most likely exists. TermsAll terms and definitions are excerpted from or influenced by Wikipedia, the Oxford Dictionary, and/or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. God - an intelligent being that is an omnipotent, omniscient cause of the universeMost likely - 'probably' Exist - 'have objective reality or being'Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speechs4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. Pro must begin in R1 and must not present arguments, rebuttals, or debate summary in R410. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case and generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and CrystallizationR4. Con generic Rebuttal and Crystallization; Pro waivesThanks......to Voice-of-Truth for the debate, and to n7, BlueDreams, ColeTrain and 21MolonLabe for advising!
Attack on Titans is better than Full Metal Alchemist

Well since BOP is on pro, and he forfeited, I'll just post some really quick arguments. I'm going to assume he's talking about brotherhood, as that is the more commonly talked about version. FMAB is considered to be one of the best anime of all time by the majority of people. On the website MAL Full metal alchemist has a 9.2/10 rating, while attack on titan has a 8.9 rating There is a maximum of 500 characters for this debate, so I can't really argue my points.
Attack on Titans is better than Full Metal Alchemist

Attack on Titans is much better than Full Metal Alchemist because it contains much more action. It also contains many story plots against titans. And the fact of the matter is, is that they are fighting titans 20x their size and still attacking the nape of their necks. Attack on Titan is obviously the better show of the two because of these obvious reasons. Plus in Full Metal Alchemist you just go on small tiny spy fights and the rest is talking. You get way more out of Attack on Titan any day.
ATHEISTS ARE IMAGinARY!!!!!

It seems as I have won this debate at this point as the last argument is completely invalid. If I didn't exist how would I be able to post this very argument. and even if I was a computer program, technically I still exist as I am able to be interacted with physically through the computers mouse and keyboard, and interpreted through the sense of sight. Also I am not particularly atheist. so that claim is also invalid. I am a spiritualist that believes in the transfer and continuation of energies from the beginning of time, in my perspective, the earth, sun and universe are my gods and creators to some degree as I believe we share an intimate connection with these three entities through the transfer and use of energy. These are my beliefs that I came up with on my own, without a committed theology in theism, proving my point that people do not need to conform to a particular theology to understand or interpret the universe. All human beings are individuals capable of there own thoughts and feelings towards the universe, to conform to someone else's beliefs without ones own self mediation in thought is simply preposterous. This entire argument is an attack at a group of people you don't understand, I thought I would set you straight by informing you of these facts so you can from here make your own personal decisions in thought without being the pawn of a dying belief system.
ATHEISTS ARE IMAGinARY!!!!!

LOL!!! You are a TOTAL STUPID HEAD!!!!! You have not givene one shered of proof that atheistss EXISTIST!!!! THERFOROE THEY ARE IMAGIANRURY AND CONNOT POSIBLLY EXISST BECAUSE THEY JUST DONT!@!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE IMAGIANRY TOo!!!!!! YOUARE A MERE COMPUTER PROGRAM OR A N ATHEIST WANNABE!!!!!
ATHEISTS ARE IMAGinARY!!!!!

The ideology of atheism is an interesting one, being theism is the study and believe of one or more gods, atheism is to theism as asexual is to sexual. To elaborate, atheists do not use the "standard" in general mythology and belief of the creation of the universe and its inhabitants, instead, an atheist uses what they have learned and gathered in there personal experiences to construct these views. Simply put, all asexual creatures reproduce and exist using the same methodology that has been used the same with limited deviation, generation after generation. But sexual animals court, mate and raise children with many different deviations from species to species, as is the same with sexual plants. This is the same for an atheist, the only thing we have in common at all is the fact that we do not agree with the existence of a creator being without another prior creator being. Because of this, we've branched out into many different areas with different beliefs based on different sciences, but the main glue is that we all have looked beyond a one sided, perpetuous mindset that keeps us locked to a mass standard. As in the natural kingdom of earths creatures, it seems as the ones who mutated and changed there ways were successful in the end as the size and plenty of large Eukaryotes living on earth (Plants and animals), in this same way, from my perspective, the pile of evidence for an atheist argument has evolved beyond the old standard and will now continue to grow in perpetuity.
ATHEISTS ARE IMAGinARY!!!!!

Atheistss are IMAGInARy!!! They cannot possibly exist if They dont worsjkip GOD!! IT DOESNT FIT LOGIC!!!!!11 Dont you fools listen to the wise ray comfort!! God doesnt believe n the atheist, and the visionary ken ham says they secretly believe in God, SO THEY DONT EXXISST!!!!! GOD IS NOT IMAGINARY!!! ATHEISTSS ARE!!!!!!!!
persevering debater please! No quitters

There is no basis on which I cannot win this debate. I have perevered and chosen a debate title (my opponent would accept any debate) as my opponent requested. Within that debate, I have also won; my opponent has not demonstrated that a triangle whose angles do not sum to 180 degrees exists. As such, the only fair course of action is to vote con! Furthermore, in round 3 my opponent stated himself that he thinks I should win.
persevering debater please! No quitters

My opponent has elected to not make any arguments. I will proceed to demonstrate why a triangle has angles which must sum to 180 degrees.This demonstrates why the angles sum to 180 degreeshttp://www.mathsisfun.com...The explanation of why the angles correspond can be found here:http://www.mathsrevision.net...; By showing that the same angle is produced on two parallel lines by antoher single line, one can use the idea of vertically opposite angles to show why the diagram shown on the first link is correct.Over to my opponent to give his counter example.
persevering debater please! No quitters

"[Any] topic is fine, you can choose"The topic is:"There exists a triangle whose internal angles do not add up to 180 degrees" DefinitionTriangle - A 2 dimensional three sided shape strictly in Euclidean geometry (i.e. non hyperbolic, non elliptic, non differential etc.)[1]Over to pro.------[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

My apologies for making you wait so long for my opening response. I hurriedly snatched up this topic before I had the time to properly write back. For your theory, I only ask that you provide evidence to your claims, as I seem to have nothing to work with as of right now. :) Also, the different falling rates of objects does not apply to this idea. Stating that something that has never been proven (different rates of falling for different weights) was wrong, and therefore any scientific theory is wrong, is erroneous in the extreme. If this logic is to be used, then any "science" in the Bible cannot have merit, for those words were written by man, just as any mathematical formula is. To prove your point, you must first show that radiological dating is invalid. As I'm sure you know, carbon dating is a method in which carbon 14 levels in an organic material are measured. As Carbon ages, it radioactively decays, reducing its weight. This process is easily observable in a laboratory. By measuring the Carbon 14 remaining in organic matter, and comparing it to atmospheric Carbon 14 levels at the time, scientist can effectively find the age. This was proven by Willard Libby. "He first demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately measuring the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge whose age was known from historical documents. " http://hbar.phys.msu.ru... The article outlining the specifics is here http://en.wikipedia.org.... To disprove this, you must show that, in the Bible, there is a passage from god that explains and then renders radioactive decay law invalid. This, along with other dating techniques, are viewed as incontrovertible evidence in archeology. Do you mean that the Universe is only 6000 years old? Or that it has existed since the Big Bang, and that the planet Earth only came to be 6000 years ago? I really need to hear more before I can respond in full. Therefore I leave with this: If the Earth was only 6000 years old, then how could Carbon 14 dating, a mathematically simple process, prove a man to be over 9000 years old? http://videos.howstuffworks.com... Unless you can effectively disprove radiocarbon dating, your resolution will stand negated by real science. I look forward to reading your future responses, and thank you for starting an interesting topic for debate.
The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

I believe the Bible is 100% accurate and that it tells us through lineages that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Science backs the Bible up 100% of the time and when there seems to be a contradiction between the two there is a misinterpretation of the facts. I stand by my position understanding that the majority believes in evolution and a billion plus year old earth but I'd like to remind everybody that the whole world used to think that big rocks fell faster than little rocks. God Bless and I'll open up the discussion to all comers.
The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

Well, hopefully you just forgot to check back in time, like I did with my last debate. It is as if you have robbed from me the last chapter of a good book. With that being said, voters: there is no reason whatsoever to vote PRO in this debate. While I have brought forth two radically different forms of evidence for the Earth and Universe being billions of years old, my opponent has done nothing but attempt to discredit radiometric dating. Debate is a contest of logic and knowledge, and the theory of the Big Bang basks in the glow of both of these attributes. Use your minds, the most complex arrangements of matter in the known universe, which evolved from a life form much less advanced than a bacterium.
The Bible is a reliable and accurate text.

Thank you for a wonderful debate. To conclude this debate I want to just reiterate my stance. I do not believe that the bible is an accurate or reliable source. I have shown examples that it is not free from error or defect; it is not consistent with a standard, rule, or model; it is no precise; nor is it exact. Using the definition for accuracy I further state it lacks the validity to be used in any case as factual. Thank you and may the best argument win. Innkeep
The Bible is a reliable and accurate text.

Let me start by saying that part of believing in the Bible and its text is acknowledging that God's power is limitless, and He can do all things. God is not a human being like you and me, He is almighty and powerful. I'm not trying to preach, but I feel it's important to reveal that God's power is limitless. John 3:12 reads, "But if you don't believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? " My opponent misunderstands what this verse is actually saying. Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader, that if a religious leader such as himself does not understand what can happen on earth, how will he understand the limitless power of God in heaven. Here is all of the story (A). The easiest way to explain to my opponent why light and the sun are created on different days, is to explain that God is light. "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. " 1 John 1:5God creates light on the first day and separates it from the darkness (Genesis 1:3-5). Keep in mind God's power is limitless, He can do all things. God then creates "lights" in the sky to govern day and night (Genesis 1:14). Basically, light already existed before the sun. From a scientific standpoint, the sun was created but that was not the point at which light existed. Light had existed before the sun, so there is no discrepancy between the Bible and science on this issue. The issue regarding vegetation is somewhat harder, however, the vegetation in Genesis 1 is different from Genesis 2. The other discrepancies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are invalid. Noah's ark is real. My opponent is mistaken when he says the flood covered the earth for 360 days. "And the floodwater covered the earth for 150 days. " Genesis 7:24Evidence which shows that Noah's Ark existed can be found here and here. (B)(C)The Gospels of Jesus Christ are all the same. They are different perceptions from different people, which in reality are all the same thing (D). I realize that some discrepancies do rise up, but when you do your homework instead of pulling facts of the Internet, you realize that the Bible is Truth. "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong with our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip His people to do every good work. " - 2 Timothy 3:16-17"Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. " - Proverbs 1:7(A). https://www.biblegateway.com...(B)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(C)http://www.charismanews.com...(D)http://www.christianitytoday.com...