BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
school needs to be shorter

I am currently a Sophomore student and personally, I am on the fence about the topic as a whole. If it is okay with you, I would like to post my comments and questions before and after my paragraphs in order to cross examine different claims and strengthen my case while digging deeper for information on your side. From Pre-K, to Elementary school and Middle School, all the way through High School into your College days, school has been all you have truly known. As a student, we often-times get the biased view on how "school days are too long and the classes are pointless," but we forget the main purpose of school; to form our future, successful members of society. While days are seen as long, they are only 6.7 hours on average. The issue is not how long the educational teachings run, but the time we begin the classes. In an article posted by the University of Rochster's Medical Center on the effects of depression and anxiety of adolescents, it was observed that "Teenagers with school starting times before 8:30 a. m. may be at particular risk of experiencing depression and anxiety due to compromised sleep quality. .. " Many school districts, such as the Hillsborough County School District in Florida, have begun to adopt the revised schedules in which school times were moved to 8:30am while keeping the same duration from the morning bell to the dismissal bell at the end of the day. The issue with shortening a school day is the trouble of preparing for standardized tests and making sure students have retained new information without ample repetition to ensure all students have memorized key information. Questions for you: - In what way will you modify schedules and ensure the success of students in the long run? - Are there any studies that have brought about the results of schools and puberty being linked to students being unstable and crooked? - Do you have concrete evidence to support claims of school times being too long, or is the argument based on biased views from former and current students who may have failed to see the importance of our school system?
school needs to be shorter

The period people go to school can be told as the most important period of life.During the puberty, they form values and relationship with people.Many of them feel unstable and can get crooked, too.Therefore, they need to spend more time and communicate with family so that they can feel their love.Also, a family can be the best friend to talk their mind with.And the school is taking the time to spend with family. Contrary to the concentration of students, the class time is too long.Many students seem to be capacity on following the whole class.Since they have a problem concentrating the class, they feel bored.Also, it can be connected to the increase of stress.With a lot of stress and low production, it is better to spend the time on their personal progress.
Belief in god is rational.

The fact that something helps one cope with life, does not make it rational. rational is defined as"based on or in accordance with reason or logic." If I sincerely believed in reincarnation, and believed I would reincarnate as a king, I'm sure I would feel a lot better. I would cope with this life a lot better, because I would believe something better is coming, however there is no ground for accepting the belief as true, thus it is irrational. Numbers are a human concept, and if we never came up with the concept, they would not exist. They don't naturally exist in the universe. I concede that I am assuming they carried out experiments, but that is because I have no reason to disbelieve that scientists carry out experiments, because that's what a scientist does. I do acknowledge that atoms could be a lie, but what ever is said about them is testable. If I go do the experiments, and they turn out false, I will promptly end my belief in atoms. " God can save many people who have lost all hope but that doesn't prove that the thing that had the effect to make them gain hope again actually exists." My opponent just basically admitted that god is not testable. If god saves people, he exist. Things that don't exist can't save people. I maintain that things that don't exist, don't have effects on anything. Just like things that don't exist, don't have traits. It's kind of like saying "that square circle gives me hope, and it helps me out in bad times." A square circle can't exist, and thus it does nothing to anyone." "Science explains absolutely nothing about the true origin of things." This statement is just plain false. There is a whole branch of science dedicated to the origins of the universe. "Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or about how reality came to be." https://www.princeton.edu... I agree that atoms and gods are concepts, but atoms have a physical existence. No religious system I know defines god as merely a concept, and there is no reason to think that god is anything but a concept. My opponent might be holding a definition of god that means "the perfect ideal", but I know of no system that holds this. I find his neo-theism fascinating though. God is commonly defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. " However a concept, that lacks a physical existence, can't create a universe. This idea contradicts my opponent's statement that "God requires no physical presence at all." God needs a physical existence to create something. Since the common notion is that god created the universe, and we both agree that neither needs a cause, why still even incorporate god? Occam's razor dictates that the solution that provokes the least additional questions, is the most rational. Thus god just becomes an additional and irrelevant term in the sequence. http://math.ucr.edu...
Belief in god is rational.

First of all, just because Gods are not detected doesn't make it less rational to believe in them than atoms. Numbers are not detectable but it's rational to believe in them because it helps us cope with life, much like God does for many people and much like atoms have for many scientists. Secondly, the evidence that atoms have been detected is all word of mouth and written scripture that you assume "scientists" actually carried experiments out to discover when ti could all be a lie to better explain the terrifying unknown which religion seeks to explain away too. What is said about atoms can indeed be tested but that doesn't prove that the results are due to the atoms existing. Int he same way, God can save many people who have lost all hope but that doesn't prove that the thing that had the effect to make them gain hope again actually exists. We assume that the results being received prove the existence of atoms but in reality that could be a mistaken theory. "Everybody who believes in something, believes in that something." This is true. This is exactly what the 'consensus' about atoms has been based upon. "The claims written down about atoms can be falsified." The claims about atoms might be falsifiable but the claims are about effects of what we presume to be existent atoms but, in reality, may be something very different altogether or nothing at all. Atoms are beyond the capacity of our senses and we have no way of determining their existence, or lack thereof. You say that science attempts to explain what caused the universe. God could have made everything that happened happen. Where did the energy and matter required for the big bang come from? Science explains absolutely nothing about the true origin of things, it only studies the processes that any rational individual would realize that a god could have caused to happen. "Things that don't physically exist, only exist as concepts, and I'm sure no one thinks god only exists as a concept, and so a problem remains present for the theist." Actually, God is just as much of a concept as atoms. I do not see anything less conceptual about an atom than a god. "The universe does not need a cause." God doesn't need a cause either.
Belief in god is rational.

I equivocated seeing and detection, but detection is evidence. Since we can detect atoms, it is rational to believe in them. In the quantum world detection is about as good as it gets, but at least it's something. God's are not detected. I can extend my statement even further by saying: everybody with an understanding of an atom, believes that the atom exists. I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't believe in atoms, in person or in any other regard. I doubt my opponent has encountered or heard of anybody who disbelieves in atoms. The consensus among those who know about gods is not that gods exist. My opponent's statement that the consensus among religious people is that god exists is the same thing as saying that everybody who believes in something, believes in that something. The big difference in the evidence is that the claims written down about atoms can be falsified. What is said about atoms can be tested. The written claims about seeing god or the devil can't be falsified or tested. My opponent states that god begins to explain what made the universe. I think this makes the whole situation more complex; it's like solving a mystery, by appealing to a bigger mystery you didn't need to appeal to. Atheism is not a doctrine, so obviously "atheism" does not have anything to say about the subject; atheist get their views from science, and reality, and philosophy. Science does attempt to explain what caused the universe, and based off the evidence of quantum physics, the universe does not need a cause. Things that don't physically exist, only exist as concepts, and I'm sure no one thinks god only exists as a concept, and so a problem remains present for the theist.
Belief in god is rational.

The first error Con makes is in stating that "My opponent and I could go to a research institute, use the STM and see an atom." No atom has ever been actually seen. It's too physically small for the human eye to see. Even the most powerful microscope on Earth can't begin to get to atomic levels. You may say that a consensus has been reached and all scientists agree that the atom exists but a consensus between all religious people has been reached that god exists. The only evidence for atoms is something people wrote down as having observed. It could all be a lie. there is literally no more proof that any of the research is even real than there is that God-sightings and miracle instances are real. Why is there any more logic to atoms than God or a virgin birth? We never said it was the Christian god and we never established whether or not the word 'virgin' back then just meant you still had a tight vaj at the end of the night. God begins to explain what made the things that made time and the rest of the universe; atheism fails to remotely indicate what made these things. There is no more evidence for atoms than there is for god. Omni-benevolence may be implied but it is never explicitly stated, thus I shall negate it as a bias, fallacious interpretation. God has no physical presence, it is a sentient being and is raw sentience with omnipotence. Thus, for God to be everywhere it wouldn't require him to physically be everything but merely to spread his consciousness far and wide. God requires no physical presence at all, only a spiritual one.
Belief in god is rational.

Round one: outlines Round two: Initial arguments Round three and four: rebuttal Round five: conclusion. In this debate I will be arguing that belief in god is irrational, and my opponent will be arguing that a belief in god is rational. A rational belief (to me) is one that there is good evidence for, or that is philosophical or logical reasonable. I will argue 1)That there is no evidence for god. 2) That the evidence of the world points to there not being a god. 3)The implications of the very absolute definitions of god render the belief irrational. The god in question is the god of Abraham. Deist are welcome too, I have never debated one and I find your position fascinating. Please have arguments aside from faith. I am looking fora challenging debate because i wish to become better at debating, and specifically debating god, and morality and such. This debate is always fun and relevant, and I thank in advance whom ever accepts, and wish you good luck and a good time.
My life is the worst you can live

I think it's funny how you have completely changed your argument each round, being bullied isn't even close to a lifetime of slavery. "I had my head hit between two metal bars, been beat up, being abused by a friend, bullying encouraged towards me by my own brothers, explain how that works. brothers stand up for each other, yet mine don't" You've used no details for how these events occurred, therefore it is illogical to believe any of these events even happened. I had my head hit between 2 metal bars (1.Tubman had it worse 2. How 3.Why 4.When 5.Where) Been beat up (1.Most people have been beaten up before so this can't mean you've had the worst life of All-Time. 2. How 3. Why 4. When 5. Where) Being abused by a friend (1. How, 2. Why, 3. When, 4. Where) Brothers picked on you (1. so has anyone else with brothers, including me. 2.How 3. Why 4. When . Where) In addition, I've already reminded you of a happy time, when you won a debate. http://www.debate.org...
My life is the worst you can live

So your saying you have the worst life of all time because you hit your head. Harriet Tubman Early in her life, she suffered a severe head wound when hit by a heavy metal weight. The injury caused disabling seizures, narcoleptic attacks, headaches, and powerful visionary and dream experiences, which occurred throughout her life. One day, the adolescent Tubman was sent to a dry-goods store for supplies. There, she encountered a slave owned by another family, who had left the fields without permission. His overseer, furious, demanded that Tubman help restrain the young man. She refused, and as the slave ran away, the overseer threw a two-pound weight at him. He struck Tubman instead, which she said "broke my skull". She later explained her belief that her hair " which "had never been combed and ... stood out like a bushel basket" " might have saved her life. Bleeding and unconscious, Tubman was returned to her owner's house and laid on the seat of a loom
My life is the worst you can live

Ok your Carrot argument http://www.100daysofrealfood.com... I am by no means condoning the consumption of chlorine, but the amount of chlorine in the water they use is 4 parts per million (ppm), which, for some, is similar to what"s coming out of your tap. Again this is certainly not ideal, but I personally find that to be a lot less "dramatic" than carrots being soaked in straight up chlorine. They also said, The chlorine is used to keep the carrots, the processing water and the processing equipment in a sanitary condition in order to prevent the spread of food-born pathogens like e coli. Onto your normal life I also live in the south and have eaten carrots, does this mean I have the worst life of anyone in human history, obviously not. I still believe the honor belongs to Harriet Tubman, and in no way have you refuted that. Good luck in round 4.
My life is the worst you can live

Are you kidding me? I'm not old,baby carrots can no longer protect themselves from harm because they are shaved down from adult carrots and washed in the same chlorine found in your local pool, that white stuff you see on them, it's not fat, it's the chlorine they soak up, chlorine is not good for the human body. P.S. Anyone can change the info on Wikipedia so Wikipedia is not good for a back up source.
Creationism can be proven scientifically.

I'd like to start off by thanking my opponent for their time. I've enjoyed this debate. Now down to business. I want to point out that I never stated that science DOES prove the existence of a higher power, but rather that it CAN. Second, the creation of the higher power is using a human ideal that is common. We assume that their is a beginning and an end to everything. This higher power could therefore have no beginning nor end, as it supernatural and does not abide by conventional laws of physics. Finally I think we need to remember I don't advocate it having the potential to prove Christianity specifically, but rather some higher power at work in the creation process.
Creationism can be proven scientifically.

This is so called assertion you made yourself has not even proven scientifically. On the other hand, what people try to do because they don't fully understand the origins of the universe is tend to think that everything has been "created" by a higher god, this is pretty visible in your case. If the so called higher god existed, Can you tell me who "created" this "Higher God"? Everything has been created, yes, isn't that what you're stating? That every matter present in the world is present due to a Creator? Even for the higher god to create things in this world, first of all, this higher god has to be created, Now, a very simple question is Who created this Higher God? Lastly, Creationism presupposes that there was nothing except a creator and He made everything. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, science presupposes nothing, it simply states that prior to a certain point in time they are incapable of finding any meaningful measurements.
Creationism can be proven scientifically.

The law of conservation does not state the existence of a higher being, I never said it did. This was an assertion I made myself. I'm saying that the fact that nothing cannot beget nothing, and so some higher power was at work. Now for your argument regarding the Bible. My first response is that I did not state anything specifically regarding Christianity or the Bible. Creationism is a common theme in most religions, so this argument is tangential rather than directly responding to mine. The other response is that if we are going to focus on the Bible specifically, we need to realize the significance of the numbers "7" and "40" in Christianity. Both of these numbers were similar to "a lot" or "many" so the time frame is not literal.
Creationism can be proven scientifically.

The laws of conservation asserts that it is not possible that everything came from nothing, TRUE. BUT, It NEVER stated it is a result of a so called "HIGHER BEING" . What you're stating isn't even existing in the first place. Creationism cannot be proved scientifically. Creationism is scientifically impossible. And I don't think there's facts under the rug about it. It's not just atheists who believe in evolution either, I know good Christians and I myself (agnostic) who believe in it. Plus what kind of tests could be done to prove creationism. We've already proved that the world is older than suggested by the Bible. Dinosaur bones are older than Adam and Eve. Creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's a religious belief.
Creationism can be proven scientifically.

I believe that creationism can be proven scientifically. Before all you atheists vote this down, finish reading my argument. First, I will use Antoine Lavoisier's theory of the law of conservation of mass. This law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves. The universe obviously exists, and this matter all came from somewhere. The laws of conservation assert that it is not possible that everything came from nothing, and the only way such a phenomena is able to occur is as a result of a higher being.
Creationism can be proven scientifically.

I would also like to remind you that being Agnostic and I really believe that we can never attain the full potential to understand if either Creationism or Evolution exists. Now, Are you actually stating that we have all been created and present today on Earth because some supernatural power had the desire to create us all of a sudden? Isn't it illogical? Creationism is a belief that allows people to be satisfied with their existence without questioning how this so called "creator" was created in the first place unlike people who believe in Evolution and who actually question the existence of everything without just believing in some supernatural being ignorantly.
Cell Phones should be used in school

Refutation"When I said "They are lightweight and cheaper" I meant like they are easier to carry around. They could still use computers to store things. "Being light weight is simply a non issue since school computers are either stationary, or only used for school work that requires a computer, not a phone, to work. For the most part students do not carry laptops around, and infact what students do carry around is getting more and more lightweight. From a 50 pound book to an iPad that is less than 1 pound. The schools that do have students carry laptops mostly or completely replaced items such as notebooks, paper, pencils, pens, white out, erasers, rulers, clipboards, and other things that can get disorganized, lost, forgotten, and weigh more when combined. Students already enjoy less items that are lighter weight than before. "When my opponent said "If the school bought every student a cell phone, they would need to deal with overage charges, monthly bills, and buying the cell phones anywhere between 1-6 times in a two year span. " I didn't mean that the school would buy the cell phones. I meant like maybe the parents would buy the cell phones and if not everyone could afford a cell phone then there would be computers and laptops, just not as many. "If I understand this correctly my opponent is simply asking for there to be less school resources that are shown to be far superior and useful in the school environment and make them less accessible for students that own cell phones. A great deal of school work in this day and age requires computers to finish, from writing an essay for English, to doing research for a science experiment, to finding trivia to impress the history teacher with, cell phones are very limited in providing in those areas (except perhaps trivia, if it's a smartphone). ExtensionI would like to extend my point from round one"Computers are used for research, storing files, and in some cases, even taking the classes. Cell phones simply cannot perform these factions, and the few that can are far less efficient. Cell phones are good for their purpose, communication, being portable, and being easy to use perhaps doubling as a portable music player; cell phones simply are not currently able to replace the usefulness that computers provide for schools and companies. "ConclusionTo recap what I was getting at in this round I was saying that cell phones weighing less than computers does not mean they are more useful than computers. Computers have several functions that cell phones are barely, if at all, currently covering, and computers are just necessary in certain areas.
Cell Phones should be used in school

Thank you for posting so quickly.When I said "They are lightweight and cheaper" I meant like they are easier to carry around. They could still use computers to store things. When my opponent said "If the school bought every student a cell phone, they would need to deal with overage charges, monthly bills, and buying the cell phones anywhere between 1-6 times in a two year span." I didn't mean that the school would buy the cell phones. I meant like maybe the parents would buy the cell phones and if not everyone could afford a cell phone then there would be computers and laptops, just not as many. So yeah that's what I have for this round.