BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
let it be resolved that all drugs should be legal

All drugs should be legalized. If the state can tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body it means the state owns my body and I am a slave to the government. Drug use is a personal decision. A lot of different drugs have various uses - for recreation, for medicine or as a sacrament. The war on drugs has been extremely harmful; it costs a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money, has ruined the lives of countless families, and completely failed to put an end to drug use. Nor should an individual who wants to do drugs be prevented from doing so. People should be able to decide how they want to run their own lives, so long as they are not hurting others or their property.
homework should not be done in kindergarten

That's a bummer. To anybody who is reading, I will provide a few more points. Homework in kindergarten builds many skills that the kids will be using in the years to come. Usually their curriculum includes counting, writing the alphabet (uppercase and lowercase), and basic addition and subtraction. These skills are crucial and will be needed in the coming years. Practicing these at home with their parents/siblings consolidates these skills even further, and allows kids to receive help if needed. I hope my opponent comes back for the next round.
homework should not be done in kindergarten

Hello! I accept your debate. I will argue that homework should be given during kindergarten. Pro states that "when you first start kindergarten [you] receive homework on the second week so [you] don't know what to do..." kindergarteners' homework is usually something along the lines of writing your name five times or drawing pictures of your house. Kids are never expected to complete their work on their own. They will usually be supervised by their teacher during class time and clearly instructed on what their assignment is and how to do it. At home they will be further aided by their parents, older siblings or legal guardian. My opponent writes that in the case that a child returns to school the next day with incomplete homework, the child "will get yelled at." It seems to me that there is a negative correlation between grade level and the teacher's patience. In other words, the younger the kids are, the more patience the teacher seems to possess. I remember bits and pieces of my kindergarten class, but what I remember the most is how kind and patient my teacher was. Patience and tolerance are the most important traits of teachers with young children. If a kindergarten teacher actually yelled at a child for not having completed his/her homework, the child would likely become upset and tell his parents after school, who may call the school's administration. Also, many K through 8 classes have an assistant teacher (ex. a college student) who would likely say something in response to such erratic behavior. Kindergarten is defined as "a class or small school for young children, usually between the ages of four and six to prepare them for primary education" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). If we want children to be prepared for primary education, homework can only help them by reinforcing fundamental skills such as writing, hand-eye coordination and responsibility. Homework should be given during kindergarten. I look forward to my opponent's response.
WW2 could be won without America's help

My opponent argues that the Lend-Lease act supposedly was not very effective, explaining that the Russians had enough manpower, and the British managed to hack into German radio frequencies. He explains that Soviet Forces were capable of taking down the German forces. He provides three battles in which the Russians won against the Germans, and admits that one of those battles was not very significant. My opponent has provided a fair amount of qualitative data and supposed “facts” such as “Russian equipment include: PPSH SMG, warm winter clothes (so they don't freeze to death), trucks designed for sub zero temperatures and took down 80% of the Nazis,” yet my opponent provides no sources supporting this data aside from his only source, Historium, an internet forum of random people discussing on whether or not WWII could have been won by the Allies without the Americans. This source is subject to fallacies and biased data, and therefore should not be accepted as true data.Ultimately, my opponent argues that the Allies, especially the Russians, were capable of winning World War Two alone. However, this was clearly not the case according to history. During the Third Reich, Germany developed V1 and V2 rockets capable of devastating entire cities [1], the Machenpistol 40 (MP-40) capable of sending down deadly streams of fire towards enemies, machine guns capable of annihilating entire armies, and the German 88mm anti-tank cannon that devastated transportation vehicles and tanks [2]. The Wunderwaffe Programme was a German "wonder-weapon program" also produced significant weaponry that contributed to the crippling of the Allied forces. The Wunderwaffe Programme produced vehicles such as the FL-282 Kolibri, a helicopter that could swiftly transport supplies and drop bombs. The Wunderwaffe Programme also designed Ballistic Missile Subs, which played a crucial role in Submarine warfare and hampered the transportation of troops and supplies via water [3].While the USSR might have been a force to be reckoned with, and while they may have possessed an extensive labor force capable of producing a large output of weapons and supplies, they would not be well-equipped enough to deal with the entirety of the Axis powers. If one assumes that the Russians could have won World War Two, you'd also assume that the Russians would be capable of traveling across Western Europe and bring enough supplies to replenish their soldiers. They would have to single-handedly liberate France. They would also expose themselves for more raids and attacks by other Axis forces because their forces would be stretched extremely long. One would also assume that the Russians had a way of bringing tanks and jets all across Western Europe, which, while possible, would be a strenuous and difficult task. For the reasons I have provided, I strongly believe that World War Two could not have been won by the Allied without the support of the American Army. Sources:[1] http://ethw.org...[2] http://www.history-of-american-wars.com...[3] http://militaryhistorynow.com...
WW2 could be won without America's help

Replying to your introduction, yes the USA supplied weaponry to the allies, but if they didn't, this would not have prevented the loss of the allies, the Russians had the manpower, the Brits were able to hack into German radio frequencies, with a computer code named "colossus". The weapon supplying did not cause the win, rather it slowed the war down and ended it much quicker, each of the allies did their bit to defeat the Germans, because there were so many, this would result in a victory. Like I replied to your introduction, the US did end the war much quicker by supplying $40,000,000 of weapons to the allies and eventually going in. But Russia was doing a ton of the work, Germany already lost as soon as they started the Battle of Stalingrad. America being involved was great but the best the USA brought was industrial might and the endless supply of weaponry, this shortened the war. They can very much stop the war and win it, the American weapons also helped them absolutely destroy them and rid of Hitler's 3rd Reich and plan, but this is mainly focused on the war rather than Hitler's 3rd Reich. On the one hand USSR, after a disastrous start against Germany, was able to: Stop Werhmacht in Moscow battle, December 1941. With this victory, they knew they were going to survive. Destroy Paulus"s army in Stalingrad (August 1942 - January 1943). With this victory, they realised they could counterpart the Germans. In summer 1943, with the tremendous (although not very spectacular) defeat of the German army in Kursk, Russia was finally able to start the offensive - an offensive that only finished, two years later, within Berlin"s ruins. With Russia's help, the Germans pretty much had it, and in the end surrendered. Russian equipment include: PPSH SMG, warm winter clothes (so they don't freeze to death), trucks designed for sub zero temperatures and took down 80% of the Nazis In reply to the might of US military, indeed the military was take down the Nazis. WW2 without Russia would have most likely lost, even with America's help, Russian's power was extreme. Britons could also get to German plans by hacking their radio frequency with colossus like I said before, they had brains. http://historum.com...
WW2 could be won without America's help

Thanks for the acceptance Ok, so let's begin this, I think the allies could beat the German forces with or without US intervention because they had almost the entire Europe against them. Yes, it would take longer but despite that, the allies would win. Although Germany had near-win situations, Germany already made a mistake of messing with Russia, then immediately they were done for, Russia was apparently unbeatable then. Most of the heavy lifting against Germany during WW2 was done by the Soviets - 4 out of every 5 Germans killed in the war died on the Eastern Front, and the Soviets were well on their way to winning the war on their own before US aid arrived in meaningful quantities, and before the US dominated Western Allies landed in France in 1944. If the US and Western Allies had not landed in France, the war would have ended with the Red Army overrunning all of Europe. Much ink is dedicated to the role of American Lend-Lease. It certainly helped, but it was not essential. It should be noted that Lend-Lease equipment did not begin arriving in large quantities in the USSR until late 1943. Indeed, the bulk of it did not reach the Soviets until 1944-1945. By then, the Soviets had some significant accomplishments under their belts and were well on their way to winning the war. Accomplishments owed to nobody else's assistance: Beat back the Germans in the Battle of Moscow (December, 1941) Won the Battle of Stalingrad (winter, 1942-1943) Won the Battle of Kursk (July, 1943) Liberated the Ukraine and reached the Balkans and Poland (winter, 1943-1944) Destroyed the German Army Group Center in Operation Bagration before the US and Western Allies had broken out of the Normandy Beaches (June, 1944) Kursk was the last German strategic offensive on the Eastern Front. From that point on, Germany was continually on the defensive and in a steady retreat that ended in Berlin 2 years later. And that point had been reached by the Soviets, largely on their own. American Lend-Lease certainly helped speed up the Red Army's advance, and the second front in 1944 helped divert significant German forces away from the Eastern Front. But by 1943 and the Red Army's victory in the Battle of Kursk, the broad outline of the war had already been defined, and Germany was well on the way towards losing the war. At the end of the day, 4 out of 5 Germans who died in the war died on the Eastern Front. Would that extra 5th German killed by the Western Allies have made a difference if thrown on the Eastern Front? It is possible, but certainly not inevitable. It is just as possible that he would have simply become additional grist for that insatiable mill. It should also be noted that the USSR was not even a major recipient of Lend-Lease. the British got 3 times as much Lend-Lease as did the USSR, even though their contribution to winning the war was significantly smaller than that of the Soviets. https://en.wikipedia.org...
WW2 could be won without America's help

I think the allies would win the 2nd world war without America's help, someone prove me wrong or get proven wrong Rounds 1) Acceptance 2) Rebuttals 3) Defense Rules 1) Conduct 2) Try to use sources 3) No profanity or ad hominem 4) No forfeiting No history topic? Really? Sorry if I've got the wrong one, let me know about that please
Was 9/11 an inside job

let me ask you something why would one of our very own Americans try and destroy one of our own towers no. after the war with iraq after suddam hossain gave up osama bin laden went over to kuwait and destroyed one of are very own navy ships i would know my dad was one of the people who rushed over there as fast as the boat would go he told me that osama bin laden sent a message to the government and told them he was behind it later the 9/11. and all this would have stopped if bush did not send people to attack iraq
Public schools should be banned

You say that education can be saved with Ken Robinson's planned method of schooling, but I say this is false, because they are impossible to implement. First off, public schools are run by the government. Which means the government sets standards and rules for how the schools are to succeed, and if the schools do not obey their funding is cut. The effect this has is that when change happens, and it happens often, schools can not change themselves on time to adjust, in a manner similar to communism or socialism (and we ALL are well aware of why state communism/socialism does not work). That is why private schools work so well, because they have many teachers and few students, and few parents, and have a more close communication between parents and teachers, and thus can make changes openly when necessary. Second, because schools have so many students and so many needs to fulfill since they are not a niche but a mainstream, enormous average for an average community (and ghettoes), schools are forced to enforce conformity so that everyone can do the same assignments, and if this does not happen, everything falls apart. Because again, the entire foundation is flawed.
Public schools should be banned

You say that reform would be worthless in America since it's already taking place, and nothing is changing. That's why I mentioned Ken Robinson in my first round. He has the same opinion that I do; that we're spending too much money on reforming only superficial aspects of the modern education system when we really need to reform the education system from it's core. It's also true that people love learning, but not school. People like learning because it satisfies the natural human instinct of curiosity, but they hate school since school basically removes all the fun and interesting things about learning, so that the subjects being taught end up being unsatisfying. Again; we need to reform the entire education system at it's core. We shouldn't only change the superficial things like replacing textbooks with technology or bringing in guest speakers to promote the current education system. I belive that, if the money spent on education actually goes to reforming education at it's core, non-coercive schooling would be useless since kids would actually want to go to school. Homeschooling would lose it's appeal due to this as well, although it would still be used by people who need it. (Disabled kids and special needs kids in certain circumstances.) As for the bullying aspect, I will repeat myself again: Reform. Reforming education at its core would make it more personal and enjoyable for the students, so that there would be more room for emotional development. As for your point about the fact that students don't get much psychological help in school, I say that there is a massive amount of online, phone and personal counselling available outside of school. All we need to do is to make it more well-known amongst students.
Public schools should be banned

You say that other countries such as the DRC have horrible poverty due to a lack of education, however, I did not advocate having the children of America getting as little education as them, or no education like them. I simply said that the public school system should be replaced with homeschooling and "non-coercive schools" which, by he way, have already been tried and worked successfully. Furthermore, you say that the first seven years of a child's education are the most important, and I agree. However, you fail to take into account that the discipline, bullying, and coercive schooling exist in those seven years as well, albeit perhaps the coercion won't matter as much. But you still have kids (such as Derrick Jensen, an anarcho-primitivist environmentalist, as a child) say that they love learning, yet hate school. In addition, you say that educational reform is needed, yet that is what parents and politicians and teachers have said to the point that it has become clich"d, billions of dollars have been pumped into the system, and a large portion of our time has been spent trying to fix it, yet the end result is the same, leading us to doubt that there is any hope left. That is because the entire foundation is flawed. Lastly, you claim that with enough pushing of the students towards kindness, they will be kind to each other, however, it is not this simple. The vast, vast-majority of the time spent in school is spent doing work, and I repeat, work. Not character-building activities, not group therapy, not even getting to talk to the school counselor, which by the way, you can't do in High School for emotions. The entire theme of school is succeeding on your work by memorizing knowledge, and school is also a very impersonal place. it is not family, but like work for students, and your private life will most likely stay in your private place, which is home, or your friend's home.
Public schools should be banned

To start off, I'll just assume, for the sake of the debate, that you want to ban public school to get rid of the problems that occur within it. Sounds like a nice plan, until you realize the consequences. First of all, education is extremely important. It is flawed, but that doesn't mean that we need to ban it completely. Children need to learn so that they can become functioning members of society. Just take a look at poor countries, like the DRC or Sudan, where the majority of the children aren't being educated. The economy is poor because of a lack of skilled and educated workers, violence is everywhere, and kids are reduced to doing menial jobs in substandard living conditions, since they can't get educated to get a better job/life. A lack of education may not be the only thing that destroys societes and reduces them to poor conditions, but it plays a large part in it. For your second argument, I agree with you when you say that education is flawed. You are right when you say that education turns kids into robots, and blames them when they can't sit still and compute. I went through this as well, and I ended up hating school. I can't deny that it did give me some important life skills, however. Like simple mathematics, or grammar, or learning how the world works. For the first seven or so years of a child's education, I believe that the child learns as much as he needs to know in the real world. I think that the schooling years after that are worthless unless a child has a passion for the subjects he or she learns there. But still, are those valid reasons for banning public school? No! I think that the modern school system should be heavily reformed to meet the needs of both the students and society. Watch some videos by Sir Ken Robinson to get an idea about where I'm coming from. For your last one, I think that your proposed solution has to many problems to work efficiently. Bullying happens outside of school, too. In the streets, in the workplaces (for adults), etc. We can't ban these places just because bullying could happen there, should we? Instead, we should work on fostering kindness and friendship between students at an early age. We could also increase funding for psychological help for both potential victims and potential bullies. That way, we can end the problem before it starts.
Public schools should be banned

First off, I would like to describe the state of crisis that the youth of America are in today. That crisis is school. The place that no teen anywhere wants to go to. We all know it, yet we lie to ourselves, saying that our case is different, that the school we went to as teenagers wasn't as good as the school our children are going to, that politicians are going to keep their promise and fix the educational system once and for all. Why is school the unsettling place it is. 1) Discipline is to the extreme. Due to political correctness, the fear of being sued, and the media's account of school violence and how not enough is being done, almost anything can be perceived as a threat to school safety. Did you know that a 9th grader can get sent to the principal's office with the police because he brought a pin that was the size of his fingernail?? Not to mention the fact that the reason he brought it was because when he says "Hi, what's your name?" an 11th grade girl, she complained to her boyfriend and he intimidated the other boy with his friends, so the other boy took it out later in case he attacked him.Other examples of major trouble for minor reasons are cops being called to an elementary school when a girl kisses a boy,a girl getting threatened with suspension for wearing an NRA shirt,and cops being called because a boy ate part of his pop tart and it then looked like a gun. This discipline slows things down, and has a psychological effect on the students, especially when the paranoid staff get them in trouble for nothing. Not only is there no danger in any of the things that is perceived as "a safety hazard," but the real danger to the students is the schools themselves BECAUSE of the regulations. Although it is sometimes justified to crack down on youth crime due to the high levels of bullying (which I'll get to later), all the wrong measures are being taken and al the wrong measures are being taken, and the entire system is doomed to fail. 2) Teaching is inefficient to the extreme. Put 20 students in a classroom, all with different learning styles, different personalities, different type of experience that particular day, assign them work to do that was preplanned and not made based on any desire of the student to learn, or any other conditions, you call that learning? That is turning kids into robots, and then blaming them when they don't sit still and compute rather than create. 3) School is dangerous. As shown by the tragic death of Rebecca Ann Sedwick, kids can be monsters, and dangerous ones at that. Do you know what Rebecca's bully said after she committed suicide? Its this: I don't give a f***. And because of all the lobbying from multiple directions, outdated information, and complete and utter fear of the schools to do anything and stand up to the aggressive parents, the bullies are never charged. Lastly, the problem cannot be solved by SOME students going to other school, because parents are simply too biased and thus against it...