BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework Hinders Learning

first in this debate we are just talking about homeowrk hinders leaarning not an abundance therefore it shouldnt matter how much, just homework period. I know how hard it is when your parents arent able to help you especially for foriegn language and math but we still learn on our own. and yes we do use internet for examples I mean do you really use google to actually do your homework, no, you get your ?'s answered but your still doing it yourself thus learning on your own with technology. and no one can use plagerism so we just ask for answers we get them but we learn at the same time and im pretty sure your parents dont just give you the answer they show you how to get it or explain it, therefore your learning. I dont know about you but I think almost every teenager does something fun on the weekend if they arent restricted by parents (like grounded for example) even if they have homework. I mean we wouldnt be debating this right now if you werent busy doing homework now, this is for fun (basically)... even if they can't do it for long they still have time because I dont know about over there but here we would have friday saturday and sunday to get all the work done so thats plenty of time thats atleast 48 and 10 hours of free time... I dont think homework takes that long therefore you still can find time to be a teenager Although homework may be tough and overbearing it helps you to know what you are learning and to know how to do it in the future because its practice. Plus not everyone tries, thats why teachers give homework to make sure we are doing it and to make sure we understand what they are teaching because if we didnt understand then how would they know what he/she is doing wrong without our concent.?
Homework Hinders Learning

I agree no one enjoys homework and it is good for is in the long run but some teachers don't teach much at all in class and give you truck loads of homework and its only the start of the school year for me. I'm only in 8th grade and I'm getting stuff my parents aren't that good at. It just shows how different our countries are. Not only does it cause stress it gives you sleep deprivation. Plus we don't really do our homework by ourselves if you think of it. There is the Internet ( Google, wikipedia, ninemsn, yahoo ect ) we just get onto one of those search engines type in the main words and there it is. So we just write it in our book or type it up. Another thing to our parents may help us. Even though stress comes in at some point we still kind of aren't doing it ourselves. Plus it's not just us with the sleepless nights and stress our families come into it as well. My parents are sometimes up all hours helping me. Homework also doesn't allow us to be teenagers and have fun. Is our idea of a fun weekend sitting at home doing maths homework ? I don't think so its taking us away from being social and having fun. Some studies also show that overload of homework isn't associated in higher grades. Also everyone would like to be correct in what they are doing because we need good grades to get somewhere good in life. Homework is good to an extent but an overload isn't good for us.
Homework Hinders Learning

First I would like to say that no one enjoys homework, but that's life, no one enjoys doing work after work. Although I do agree with the homework being stressful, we can see that it's worth it in the long run. I cant really say that we do learn from homework, its practice. The teacher teaches you the subject chapter ect. They give us homework so we can practice what we just learn to see if we are doing it correctly, or if we are doing something wrong, and we remember how to do it because we practice it so much, and if we dont get what the teach just taught us we can look at homework and ask the teach or another student who may explain it better. homework enables us to get a better understanding and much more practice for the future so we actually know what we have to do besides hearing it come from the teach. It's almost the end of the school year and this is when all the projects start popping up: english: grammar book spanish: poster about little me geometry: art project on triangles world history: italian renaissance art on top of all that I do speech and debate and cross country and science olympiad (after school activities) I get home around 430 do homework till about 830... but on thuesdays and thursdays i go to all state band from 6to10... though may days seem very busy I still find time to manage my stress levels Teachers don't know are daily routine after school, they give us homewrok because they dont want to see us fail they want us to succed... It's our fault if we do some sort of after school activity therefore not giving us enough time to do homework but teachers know that if we want to be somewhere in our lives we would do the work no matter how much it is And going to bed is the matter if you do or not and what time you do... I dont go to bed till really late because well I study because I want to be correct on what im doing and i want to be able to remember what im learning for tests and stuff... And i get up really early 4oclock, to run because although school may be a drag I find time to do what I love (I run) even if its at a horrible time, but im still alive and kicking and I never feel tired (but thats just me) homework is a good impact to us kids
Homework Hinders Learning

That homework hinders learning. It causes stress on the student ad with todays technology we can just google it we dont really learn through homework and with the amount students get is ridiculous and its all due in the same sort of time which is horrible i know because i am a student myself and i have 4 debate speeches due, a science booklet due, french assignment due and maths homework on top of that and they are all due around the same time. As soon as i get home i get home relax try to do as much homework as possible then i eat shower and go to bed. Some days i have dancing which dosent allow me to do homework until 7-8 pm and then i dont get to bed until around 10-11 its unhealthy doses of homework
Homework Hinders Learning

actually most teachers do make it fun so they dont lose the attention of the students, but then there are the teachers who really dont care what you do after school and make you do the homework that is given so you get it and gives you more practice on how to do it ect and studying is helping you learn it better and even more... So we should just learn to suck it up and do it anyway, I mean when we go to work when we are out of high school we will be doing twice the work... So we might as well learn now
Homework Hinders Learning

Yes I agree with you in your points. Its very overbearing and not fun but sometimes it just sucks the creativity out of you because your doing homework over and over again. I study alot too but not only for school but for dance lessons, singing lessons and guitar lessons. So actually homework isn't just based at school. So for students who are very busy with other activities and do have to study before lessons its horrible. Tomorrow I have a maths exam I'm studying but that isn't pointless and it's not homework either. But that isn't hindering learning its helping. Homework is good to an extent but just the stress and the not being too social turns people off it. Teachers should make homework fun but still educational so you want to learn more.
More Guns are Not the Answer to Stopping Gun Violence

The American constitution was based on the principles of more than one person. And to say that because A was based off B then A must uphold all components of B is incorrect logic. There are many ideas that are based off one idea or person but have incorporated other ideas or dismissed some of the associated ideas. Which brings me to the Constitution. If we were to abide by the Constitution, women and black people would not be able to vote. The point being, we don't want society to be exactly as it was in 1776, we want our principles to growth with the times. But to be clear, I do not believe gun ownership should be illegal, but I believe we should have a high standard to allow ownership of a gun. Higher than we allow now. But to the main point, higher gun ownership (I don't care about the # of guns) is currently associated with higher gun related deaths as documented in the articles I presented. Your point about the criminal not attacking someone because they may own a gun was already addressed in my initial point - it will not stop a criminal because a criminal will just sneak up behind you. Whoever has the gun drawn first wins. The same is true for robbery. Beyond that higher gun ownership makes guns more easier for criminals to get, which empowers them. Even more importantly, accidental and wrongful gun violence is more prevalent with higher gun ownership. Take for example when a woman shot across an department store parking lot in broad daylight because security was chasing a shoplifter. An innocent bystander could easily have been injured or killed. Are we safer in that situation? Would you be safer if you had a gun? No. And we all know about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing themselves or someone else. Responsible gun owners will take all measures to prevent that from happening, but it will still happen and it will happen more when more homes have guns in them. I think the challenge is this: we feel safer personally when we have a gun. As a father and husband, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that we are all less safe when more people own guns and the statistics bear that out. Even personally, a gun will only protect you in specific situations. Someone can always get the drop on you, and groups can always target individuals, and criminals can always hold a hostage, or threaten someone else, to get you to do what they originally wanted. But point is, even if you can come up with a few examples of a situation where a gun might prevent a crime, we are all more likely to be subject to gun violence if more guns are available via higher gun ownership. Therefore, to the question posed in the debate, more guns/gun ownership is not the answer to reducing gun violence.
More Guns are Not the Answer to Stopping Gun Violence

The american constitution principles are made by the principles of John Locke. Therefore all american law has to abide by the principles of John Locke. John Locke states that people should be able to do as they please as long as they don't impede on peoples life, liberty, and property. Our founding fathers recognized this as the basic fundamental of law but they also understood they couldn't let the people rely on the governments safety which is one of the reasons we have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a way to defend our own life, liberty, and property. Its not the case of more guns but the case of more people with guns that would make us safer. Just use common since would you attack someone if you knew that the person your attacking and the people around have a gun? would you rob a house if you knew everyone inside has a gun? no you wouldn't. I'm not saying that bad guys wouldn't get guns i'm stating that bad guys will always get a gun or some kind of weapon, so do you think its okay to let only bad guys be able to carry a weapon and let us law abiding citizens bring a knife to a gun fight. Thomas Jefferson the author of the constitution states that it's better to live in dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. To own a gun is a way to be able to defend yourself and self defense is obviously a right (I hope I don't have to explain to you why.).
More Guns are Not the Answer to Stopping Gun Violence

More guns is will not decrease gun violence, it will increase it. Multiple studies have shown this to be true. Before you post any statistics or studies, please make sure they are fair comparisons. For example, in comparing gun violence in two locations, we must account for the differences in amount of poverty, crime trends, drug use and trafficking, etc. I will cite the following studies that have confirmed that higher gun ownership leads to higher gun violence: American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 2015: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... American Journal of Public Health, 2013: http://ajph.aphapublications.org... Even though some people think owning a gun makes you safer, its not true. First, there are more guns available legally and illegally, thus there is more gun violence. Second, having a gun does very little to protect you against a pre-meditated crime. If a criminal sneaks up behind you, you will not have time to draw your weapon. Third, having a gun emboldens some criminals and makes some crimes easier - such as robbing stores. Finally, with gun ownership comes a certain amount of tragic accidental deaths and many of these are children. More gun ownership will only result in more of these accidents. These reasons, along with actual data analyzed in the studies I provided, clearly show that higher gun ownership results in more gun-related violence and death.
Darth Maul was the best Sith

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't qualify it like I should have. I meant to say that Darth Maul was the best of Sidious' apprentices. There's no doubt in my mind that Palpatine was a "better Sith" than Maul. The other candidates are (1) Vader, (2) Dooku, and (3) Grievous. We'll leave out the Emperor Reborn, and all the other Post-movie Sith. Vader: Vader, or Anakin Skywalker, started out as the perfect servant, but before he could really come into his own as a Sith, Mustafar happened and he became the masked man we all love to hate. He is, after this, rather impotent and slower than he was. Although formidable and feared in the post-Jedi empire, he was an imperfect vessel for Sidious' villainy. Dooku: Dooku never really got into the Sith thing, and he was at least a bajillion years old anyway. Grievous: I'm ashamed to admit that I forgot him in the first round. But he shares the same flaw as Vader: and he wasn't too smart to begin with, anyway. Maul, however, was the perfect counterpart to Sidious. Willing, able, and single-minded. He also was the coolest-looking, had the best saber, and was generally the awesomest. Thanks for accepting!
Darth Maul was the best Sith

Since we're arguing who's the "best" sith, this is pretty subjective of course. Maul's definitely a badass, but my vote's gotta go to Darth Sidious. Maul may be the creepiest/freakiest looking one, but Sidious is the evilest, hands down. He seizes control of the senate, warps Anakin's mind, and becomes the emperor. To me, Maul is just a crazed animal, whereas Sidious is the quintessential villian. Plus his name sounds like "insidious," which makes him even cooler in my book.
Darth Maul was the best Sith

He didn't last long, and was kind of overshadowed by how bad the first prequel was, but Darth Maul has always been my favorite Sith. Here are my reasons: First, his lightsaber is the coolest. Vader and Dooku just can't match the double-bladed ferocity. Second, the tatoos make him look demonic, like a Sith should be. Not some sort of invalid in a suit, like Vader, or a doddering octogenarian like Dooku. Third, he has the best, darkest charisma. He perfectly counterpoints Sidious' machinations with his slavish devotion to the cause. He never wavers. I am, however, open to good reasoning. Thanks!
One should not be forced to say the pledge of allegience in school.

"I did not say that schools are made to make us nationalistic." You did say that saying the pledge of allegiance at school will make students proud of their country. Why do they have to say it at school? Why not at home or somewhere else? "I do not understand why you were saying something about "Freedom of speech" because this issue does not take the freedom of speech away." You really do not understand how forcing someone to say something that they may not believe is taking away their freedom of speech? Think about it this way. Would you think your rights were being taken away if the government forced you to admit to crimes you didn't commit or forced you to recite a pledge of allegiance to a political figure or a religion? "Free speech in this case meant the right not to say something, in this case, the Pledge of Allegiance." http://www.enotes.com... This is from the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette. In the case it was decided that the freedom of speech also applied to the right not to say something. Freedom of religion Students should also not be forced to recite the pledge of allegiance because of the first ammendment right of freedom of religion. This is because of the phrase in the pledge, "one nation under god". This would force atheists, agnostics, and nonreligious students to accept the existence of a deity. How can a nation be "under god" if there is no god. This phrase is clearly unconstitutional but that is subject for another debate. The freedom of religion is also taken away when Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to recite the pledge. Jehovah's Witnesses object to pledging allegiance to anything besides god, including country. These students had their freedom of religion taken away by a rule that was supposed to make them proud of their country. I am certainly not proud of a country that starts taking away rights so early in one's life. "I won't say that schools are forcing anyone to say that. " "I believe that one should force students to say the pledge of allegiance in schools." Please stick to a position. "But school rules are schools rules." You provide no argument, you merely state that it is a rule without providing justification. "They did not make rules to bother the fellow students" It does not matter why the rule was made, it matters that it takes away student's rights. "No one might think that it is taking the freedom of speech away." Again, no argument. Even if no one thought this rule was wrong, that would not mean it's not taking away precious first ammendment rights. "Don't you think that there are students who just got used to it?" Still no arument. Do I have to repeat myself? "And how it is taking away the freedom of speech?" I adequately explained this with the case of West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette. You have also not provided any reasons why being forced to recite something you may not believe makes a student proud of his/her country.
One should not be forced to say the pledge of allegience in school.

Thank you for speaking, First of all, I did not say that schools are made to make us nationalistic. I did say that if they say the pledge of allegiance in schools they will be proud of their country. Not all of them would feel proud however, there must be few people who do make them selves proud. I do not understand why you were saying something about "Freedom of speech" because this issue does not take the freedom of speech away. I won't say that schools are forcing anyone to say that. I think it is one of the school rules they made. I cannot say why they did that because I am not a principle of any schools. There are people who like this and there must be people who don't But school rules are schools rules. They did not make rules to bother the fellow students No one might think that it is taking the freedom of speech away. Don't you think that there are students who just got used to it? Sir, can you explain more about "Freedom of speech" And how it is taking away the freedom of speech?
One should not be forced to say the pledge of allegience in school.

"If student is forced to say the pledge of allegiance student he/she will feel prod for their country." Please show why taking away a student's freedom of speech should will make him/her more proud of his/her country? "If school does not force students to say the pledge of allegiance, they will not feel prod of themselves and their country" I think that allowing student's to exercise their freedom's outlined in the Bill of Rights will do much more to make them proud of their country then doing something as authoritarian as forced speech. And who says that the point of school is to make students nationalistic? Isn't the right to dissent and the freedom of speech what would make a child proud of his/her country? I would be much more proud of a country where I am not forced to recite something that I might not believe. This is not North Korea. You always hear people saying America is the freest nation on earth. Well not with authoritative laws like forced reciting of the pledge of allegience.
Khan needs to be kicked off of this Website

In your argument, you provided 3 reasons why you feel that Khan "needs" to be kicked off of this website and they are as follows: 1) He is an idiot (opinion) 2) He doesn't "contribute to anyone" (irrelevant) 3) He is probably typing "I am an idiot" repeatedly at home (assumption) I can elaborate, however, for the sake of brevity I will instead list some of my opposing arguments for you to respond to since this is only a 2 round debate. Here we go! First, the use of the word "needs" in this topic of debate is pretty extreme. This website does have certain needs, i.e. techies to maintain the database, members to participate and ensure the duration of this site, etc. However kicking one member off is not a "need" -- the site will continue running smoothly whether or not he is indeed kicked off or not. Second - and more importantly - even if it was deemed a "need" for Khan to be kicked off of this website, it would be completely unnecessary as he is no longer a member of this site anyway. I did a profile search for Khan and no member showed up, thus we can assume that his account no longer exists and therefore there is nothing or no one to kick off. Argument done! However if I may I would like to continue with some other points just to keep this debate interesting ;) Okay, since you deemed Khan to be an "idiot" I am assuming that you don't agree with his style of debating, topics of debate, or contribution to this site in terms of the things that he posts. However, if it is a mass opinion that Khan's debating tactics are incoherent, irrelevant or pointless, then everyone still has the option to consistently vote for his opponent. Furthermore, if Khan starts ridiculous debates, people can choose not to argu with him and instead ignore his challenges. If he accepts the challenges of others just to make a mockery of himself, like I said - simply vote for his opponent and ignore his immature and unnecessary remarks.