BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public schools shuld not give out homework

Nowadays, students can not indulge in any activities other than those included in their school syllabus. School takes up half of the day, while the other half is wasted on homework. Students can only take a short nap after their school, and then start completing their homework. Homework is done when it's nearly time for bed, and Mom starts telling them to go to sleep. Weekends, instead of bringing fun, bring a diary full of test schedules, and a sleepless night plus a tense day. Thus, homework is more of a burden than any help to the students. Keeping this in mind, anyone can come to the conclusion that homework should be abolished. To compensate the loss, school hours can be increased. It may also help if only four or five periods are held in class, so that students can understand and memorize the lesson then and there. In this way, students can spend appropriate time on study, and the remaining time on other healthy activities like Sports, Reading, and Writing etc. This will also give time to students to spend with their family. To conclude, homework should be abolished, but steps should be taken to compensate the loss. In this way we might also see many budding sports persons, writers etc who will bring pride to their families and their nation too.
Public schools shuld not give out homework

In my opponent's last speech, he simply went to an article about homework and copy/pasted it. (As seen here http://www.thestar.com...). In pasting this article, my opponent has successfully done the following, 1. Failed to refute my arguments. 2. Plagiarized the article. 3. Supported my original case idea. --- "Generally, students should spend 10 minutes per night per grade on homework." --- "In their study, more than 1,000 parents were surveyed and said while they like the good work habits homework promotes, as well as how it helps parents be involved in their children's academic lives, the amount students are getting is interfering with family time, play time, causing stress and even marital troubles." --> Both of these ideas support my original thesis that teachers may go overboard with homework. But that is absolutely NO reason to accept this resolution that all "Public schools should* not give out homework." Since my opponent gives no alternative to the lost work ethic and lost educational foundation, only the con side achieves any sort of benefit whatsoever. I would like to challenge my opponent to give me a reason, that has already been established in his case or article, that under no circumstances should a student receive homework. A few immediate benefits do not outweigh the exponentially greater benefits that homework achieves in the long run. Finally I would like to flow through my original case points. 1. Homework allows for parents to guide educational advancement. 2. There needs to be learning going on outside of school since currently established school hours simply do not have enough leniency. 3. Homework adds a 2nd way to make sure that students have learned the curriculum. All of these were backed with evidence and all of these went dropped. Combine this with all of the other reasons given throughout this speech and I can see nothing but a CON vote. Thank you and good luck!
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

I rounded the number to five significant figures so its 0.99999. If X=0.99999,by right you said the answer should be 9. If so why does it say 8.999991 on my calculator? It doesnt match. So your method is wrong. My 9X and your 9X is totally different. To explain further: Oppoents method: X=0.99999(rounded it to 5 significant figures) 10X=9.9999 9X=9.9999-0.99999 =9 Flaw:9.99999-0.99999=8.999991 Hence my opponent"s method is wrong. Go check with your calculator.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Yes your math tutor is wrong. My method is in fact right. Look again why is it so complicated. I'll annotate it this time. x = 0.999... 10x = 9.999... - If you multiply a decimal by 10 you simply move the decimal pint one spot to the right. 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... - Then you subtract x from 10x/ 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x = 1 Show your tutor my other two methods too. You still have not disproved any of them or showed me how they are wrong. Your calculator showed it too you wrong as you put the equation into the calculator wrong. What does 0.999...x = 9.999... mean? I think I have definitely proven 0.999... = 1.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Unless you"re telling me my math tutor is wrong,he"a saying your method is wrong. You said 0.99999....x10X=9.999999 so 9X=9.999999....-0.9999999....=9. So 0.9999999x9 should be equal to 9 right? Then why is it that my calculator showed me 8.9999999...instead of 9?
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't mean simplify the equation I meant simplify the answer. When you divide 6 by 6/ 3 by 3, you do in fact get one. I'm saying that 0.999... is 1. You wouldn't say 6 divided by 6 equals three thirds. 1 and 0.999... are interchangable. And you have not disproved any of my proofs from round 2.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

6 divided by 6=1 Simplify that it would be: 3 divided by 3 which is also equal to 1 OR 1 divided by 1=1 1x3=3 3 divided by 3 is one. If you do long division, why is 3 divided by 3 1 and not 0.9999999.....?
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

That"s a pretty dumb argument. A calculator obviously says 3 divided by 3 equals one. A calculator would not say 3 divided by 3 equals 2/2, 3/3, etc. 0.999... is simply just another way of saying 1. A calculator shows the simplest form of the answer. Why do we call it 0.999..., 0.999... instead of 1. 2/2 is 1 but it is still said as two halves or one. And, yes you could technically pronounce 0.999... as 1, just like people say 3/3 is 1. We don"t call 0.999... 1 because not enough people even know about this.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Well 0.999999....doesnt stop but then again theres a missing .1 somewhere. If we round 0.999999.....to 3 decimal places it would be 0.999. For 0.999 to become 1,the number needs to be added with a 0.001. So although 0.999...doesnt stop,you just need to round it off to a certain number of decimal places for lets say 3 decimal places and add a 0.001 from there on. To correct you:3/3 or 3 divided by 3=1 not 0.99999 as 3/3 is one whole. You can check with your calculator. I checked with mine,its 1 not 0.999999.... If it was 0.999999.... it would have shown 0.99999... like how 2/3 is shown as 0.66666667. Now wait yes they rounded the number off but if you mentally divide it,why do you think the answer is 1 instead of 0.999999.....? And when you divide the numbers,why do you not have any decimals to round off your answer to 1? Question for my opponent:If 0.99999........=1, why do we call it 0.999999..... instead of 1?
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Here are just a few examples why, I'd like to see you try disprove these ones: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x = 0.999... 10x = 9.999... 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x = 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.666... 3/3 = 0.999... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between 1 and 2 there are infinite numbers. If two numbers/values are different they will always have a difference of something. So my question is: What number is in between 0.999... and 1?
Terrorism Can Be Justified

Hello I wish to debate you. I do personally believe you are right but I will play devils advocate and hope this will be fun. I will take a stance that terrorism can be justified. Though I wish to talk to you about definitions we will use for this debate. "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." http://dictionary.reference.com... Or "a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government." http://dictionary.reference.com... Which term definition do you find accurate and a reminder that this definition that you choose will be used the entire debate no matter what unless strong evidence counts the definition you choose as void.
Feminism is beneficial to Western society.

For the purpose of this debate, feminism will be defined as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities."Let me make it clear that we are debating about the actually theory of feminism. Like in all large groups, some feminists do not follow this theory and instead put men down. Unless you can factually prove that mosts feminists do that, then do not bring that up in an argument. Saying that most of the feminists you have seen do ______ is NOT evidence. (that is anecdotal and not credible.)I want this debate to be about the mission of feminism and whether Western society can improve from it. Con must prove that feminism is unnecessary or detrimental to society. First round is acceptance. This debate should be impossible to accept, so comment if you are interested. I understand that the wording of this is a little esoteric, so leave questions in the comments if you want. It should be more clear then.
gun rights

I don't have much time to write this, so instead of addressing every item in this debate specifically, I will just say the voting points for this debate. 1. why Guns should be outlawed. My opponent suggests that because people don't obey laws, the law that is disobeyed needs to be be abolished. how is this the right thing to do. we make laws to protect America, not for everybody to follow them. abolishing guns is good for Americas protection because it docent allow for a way for someone to conveniently kill. as I have shown, guns are responsible for many deaths. laws are broken, that is why there is jail's. we don't change laws because people disobey them 2. the purpose for guns. as I said, Guns kill people. my opponent suggests that once guns are abolished, the people who obey the laws will be defenseless, I refuted this with the fact that there are other modes of self defence. in the case of a rebellion, my opponent suggested the people who disobey the law (The Rebels) will still have guns, so the rebels will have guns. now it may seem like a contradiction saying guns are bad on one hand, and on the other hand they are needed for rebellion. however, in the case of a rebellion, this law didn't apply, so they don't contradict. now, Guns are bad, they are just a way to make death more convenient, and thus shouldn't be legal. I apologise about my lack of knowledge on the lybia subject allow me to clarify the second amendment, it is the topic of debate: My case is against this, if that wasn't clear. His evidence is all the same, I already disproved it in my second speech. (btw he didn't address that, he just brought up similar evidence. )
gun rights

"You said that this is against your opinion. I thought you were against gun rights? Just need clarification."- I am debating that gun rights are bad. That doesn't mean I believe gun rights are bad. First of all let me address the second amendment because I need to "read it". Here it is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." if you need me to define bear arms it means firearms by dictionary.com. Another word for firearms is guns. So the second amendment is saying that the right to have guns should be kept. My opponent cannot use the rule itself for one of his points. "Um... you need to deny that the 2nd amendment protects gun rights. This is what we are debating about. You need to read it and tell me why it is invalid" there is no denying that the second amendment is for gun rights. I attacked gun rights in my case. Again, the second amendment is what we are debating, not a defense for the pro. "Funny because drugs are illegal and people still get it. Alcohol used to be illegal and people still got it. Same with guns. If you illegalize it people will still get it. And further more only the law abiding civilians would give away their guns. If I was a crazed murderer I wouldn't give away my guns because even though it's a crime I am about to commit murder anyway so why bother."- sure people still do drugs even though it is illegal, but they are still illegal although people still do drugs that are illegal, imagine how bad it would be if drugs were legal. We can't just remove laws because they aren't followed by everyone, that's poor logic. Also he brings up a source saying that restrictions on gun rights have increased crime rate. first of all none of those graphs included the complete ban of gun rights so you cant use them to prove that the complete ban of gun rights will increase crime. Second, the graphs have another variable contributing to the change in crime rate; the graph wasn't constant before the gun rights laws so the change in crime most likely has no association with gun restrictions. last, that source is contradictory, on one hand it supports his point, on another it supports mine by saying "Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower." these three things make my opponents only evidence irrelevant and also makes his second contention irrelevant aswell. "Um if the U.S. became like Libya we wouldn't get aid for a few years. Look at them it took them a while to get rid of quadafi. And they didn't get substantial aid until recently other then no fly zones occasionally."- The reason Libya had no fly zones is because the rebels lacked an air force, they got help on what they didn't have. They had guns. So, according to the Libya example we would get guns because we don't have them.
gun rights

"Guns are dangerous. They are the most convenient way to kill a person, and if they were taken away from average citizens, killing more people at one time would be more difficult and thus shootings wouldn't kill as many people." Funny because drugs are illegal and peopel still get it. Alchohol used ot be illegal and people still got it. Same with guns. If you illegilise it people will still get it. And further more only the law aboding civilians would give away their guns. If i was a crazed murderer I wouldnt give away my guns because even though its a crime I am about to commit murder anyway so why bother. Yes many people get shot every year. don't look at numbers look at percentages compared to other countries. look at crime rates. Here is a site that describes my view: http://www.justfacts.com... "There are other methods of self defense. We don't need guns for self defense there are other things we can use to prevent attackers such as pepper spray and tasers, these weapons are primarily for defense, you can't rob a bank with pepper spray, so they will be safe, yet effective for defense." Well they wouldnt give awaiy guns anyway so the people who where evil would still have them. So people who are lawabiding like me would have to give away guns which reduce the crime. So since they would keep their guns anyway it wouldnt matter, and further more one could make an AK-47 in his garage with the right tools. These can be obtained through black market once the illegalisation begins because most of the gun black market is from europe. I made examples above to prove my case about the crime. Um if the U.S. became like libya we wouldnt get aid for a few years. look at them it took them a while to get rid of quadafi. And they didnt get substantial aid until recently other then no fly zones occasionally. um... you need to deny that the 2nd ammendment protects gun rights. This is what we are debating about. You need to read it and tell me why it is invalid. And by the way it should be in there. when you have a case I will show you how. You said that this is against your opinion. I thought you were against gun rights? just need clarification.
gun rights

First of all I would like the judge not to vote based on who is write or wrong, just who debated better. (I am not debating my opinion) 1. Guns are dangerous. They are the most convenient way to kill a person, and if they were taken away from average citizens, killing more people at one time would be more difficult and thus shootings wouldn't kill as many people. The Legal Community against violence writes. "The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones. Gun violence touches every segment of our society. It increases the probability of deaths in incidents of domestic violence, raises the likelihood of fatalities by those who intend to injure others and among those who attempt suicide, places children and young people at special risk, and disproportionately affects communities of color." -(http://www.lcav.org...) Guns are a huge cause of death in America, why should we give people guns; they are a more convenient way to kill. Contention 2: There are other methods of self defense. We don't need guns for self defense there are other things we can use to prevent attackers such as pepper spray and tasers, these weapons are primarily for defense, you can't rob a bank with pepper spray, so they will be safe, yet effective for defense. Now on to attack my opponent's case. First of all his first contention is that the 2nd amendment protects the gun rights. Gun rights are the second amendment, so we are debating whether this should be in the constitution. This isn't a valid point because it is the thing we are debating. Second my opponent says guns reduce crime. He offers no warrant or example of this, so how do we confirm this. Last is my opponent's third point. He states this is a "Hypothetical, .001% chance" occurrence. This small hypothetical example cannot justify the negative effects presented in my case for this one event. However, if a rebellion does occur, chances are, if the people are justified in their rebellion, they will receive foreign aid, and thus get guns in this situation. Also, the rebels will not care about the gun rule if they are rebelling against the people who made it.
Vanilla is the best ice cream flavor.

Simplicity is key here.A basic ice cream can pair with so many other desserts. Ice cream sandwiches usually have vanilla ice cream in them. Chocolate cake? Eat it with vanilla! Brownies? Vanilla! I don't know what kind of vanilla ice cream you've been buying, but it certainly isn't bland. Vanilla has a rich florid flavor, and isn't so sweet that you tire of it quickly.
Basketball is worse than golf!

Basketball is defined as, a game played between two teams of five players, in which goals are scored by throwing a ball through a netted hoop fixed at each end of the court. Basketball is popular world wide and is suitable for all ages http://channels.isp.netscape.com.... Golf and basketball are similar in few ways according to http://thegratefulgolfer.com..., but how good are they in terms of your health? Basketball is definitely a faster running game compared to golf. To play golf though, you have to have patience and good eye sight, which could fail some people. Basketball is definitely much better than golf for the fitness reasons of (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...): -burn calories (an hour of basketball can burn 630–750 calories)-build endurance-improve balance and coordination-develop concentration and self-discipline-build up muscle-take care of your body more (stretches/warmup/warm down)Basketball is a more competitive sport compared to golf. Making you work towards something, and hopefully achieving it. This might be as simple as wining a game or be a fluent shooter. People at all ages can play it, and all you need to practice is a ball and a hoop. Basketball is played by people of all ages and all abilities, meaning you can challenge yourself. If you want to be the best at basketball, you do specialised training. This evolves sprints, jumping, core, strength and conditioning and more. As basketball is played all year round and is mainly an indoor sport, so you can aim to be fit all year.Children at all levels can enjoy the game too whilst making friends. As golf only evolves a small amount of people, basketball has at least 10 players each game. http://www.livestrong.com....Wheel chair basketball is also an option for people who have disabilities or have had an accident. However, it stops you from being able to play golf. Wheel chair basketball is most likely one of the best sports for people who have disabilities.In addition, basketball is much more preferable than golf. Linking it to higher fitness levels, more people to socialise with, get to be more motivated and everyone can participate in basketball.
Basketball is worse than golf!

All you have to do is hit the boall and go after it. It is much more fun compared to basketball. Firstly, golf is ann enjoyablle and relaxed way to get excersice whilst also doing a sportt. Seckondly, it is a moore sociall way to get to know people. Alll ages can get envolved and it is great for a family day oout. Thirdly, . http://www.walkthewalkpresents.com... golf doesn't cause any injuries and is a healthy way to get more flexible. In conklusion, it is good for alll ages, you get more fit comparred to basketball and flexible, it is more simple and has less rules. . http://www.braintraining101.com... has prove!
People should stop hating others based on their choice of TV show.

I think the neg has gone a bit off topic, but I shall rebut their material anyway. If you are the viewer of this TV show that promoted illegal shootings, and took the characters as your role models, then that's up to that person. If said person, however, attempts to recreate the methods used in the show, they will be dealt with accordingly. Someone supporting this show is no reason to hate that person. And may I ask how a show promoting illegal shootings would ever make its way on to national television?
People should stop hating others based on their choice of TV show.

First of all, I thank the neg for accepting my challenge. Now, continuing my case. If someone watches a communism show, then they watch a communism show. That by NO means says that we should hate them for that. NK may enslave people, but watching a TV show doesn't. So all people watching this show are doing is, well, watching a show. It doesn't hurt anyone to watch a TV show. Hopefully that explained enough for now, I look forward to receiving your next argument.
People should stop hating others based on their choice of TV show.

Basically, it is unfair for people to be discriminated about their choice of TV show. If you look on the internet, you will see many examples of people being bullied/insulted because of their choice of TV show. It is unfair and unjust for this to happen to people. A perfect example of this happening is the Bronies (grown males who watch the TV series "My Litte Pony: Friendship is Magic). Now, I am not a brony myself, but these people are a good example of people being discriminated against based on their choice of TV show. As a resident of the internet, I see bronies being bullied and hated on all the time. Some of the things people say to them are absolutely disgusting. I read a story in the news a few weeks ago about a brony killing themselves because they were being bullied about their TV show choice. Now, I'm not limiting this to bronies. Fandoms everywhere get bullied because of their TV show choice. This is why this bullying/hating must stop.