BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschooling

I accept the fact that overall you have won the debate. There are a couple more things I would like to address before this debate ends. I need to make it clear that I do not want children to be completely sheltered, but it is important to make sure that they are ready to handle certain social situations before just thrown into them. Also I cannot let the bullying statement go unanswered. There is a huge difference between bullying and constructive criticism. Bullying should never be tolerated in any instance. Especially since statistics state that over 6,000 child and teen suicides are linked to bullying. Peer pressure can be good, I agree, but again I'm still concerned about the way in which it is used which may not be beneficial. Thank you for debating with me.
Homeschooling

So far in this debate we have established that your child will, for a fact, receive a lower quality of education from homeschooling. Con and Pro have agreed on that. Socialization is now the only leg Pro is trying to stand on, and it's a very bad leg at that. First pro argued that children wouldn't be affected because there are extracurricular activities and that public school children get too much social interaction. Not only did Pro not cite this, I pointed out the logical flaws to that and overwhelming amounts of evidence that state the more social your child is the better. Now Pro has been backed into the corner to argue bullying and, what I assume to be, peer pressure. I'm not going to cite any articles or scientific documentation because this is a fairly logical argument I'm about to make. Bullying: I dare to say it. Bullying is good! Now now, put down your pitchforks, come on now let's be reasonable. What I'm talking about is it makes your children resilient to criticism, or downright abusive behaviors. Now by no means am I saying we should let it happen, but we shouldn't shelter our children from every thing that could hurt them. Peer pressure: Again, I do say, Peer pressure is a good thing. Not just the positive peer pressure either, and yes that does exist, also the negative. Before going into middle school and high school, children are told to do whatever is expected of them and whatever they are told to. Peer pressure gets children to think for themselves, whether they choose the correct or incorrect choice is mostly irrelevant. This is because it is a learning situation. Essentially what I'm saying is children usually live in a bubble even in public school, so these two concepts are not just negatives like most seem to think. In sum, Con should win this debate for the fact I have brought more disadvantages to homeschooling than Pro has brought advantages. The impact of a lower quality education effects things from salary, relationships, social skills, and general life success. The only impact of homeschooling that Pro has proven to be good is that they may be bullied less. But with my last argument we see that is not just a negative. Voting Con: Better education for our children Better social and mental development as well Voting Pro: Might be less subject to bullying Decide for yourselves.
Homeschooling

I will concede to your point that public school teachers are more likely to have more education and therefore more suited to teach. Going back to the socialization issue, allow me to clarify. Instead of saying "too much socialization", my concern is that kids might get the wrong kind of socialization. Kids are very impressionable and especially in elementary and middle school, they are trying to figure out who they are. When they are around other kids for a majority of their time, they are under a lot of pressure to act a certain way in order to fit in. While that can be a problem in any type of social situation, the pressure is greatly lessened in a home school situation. Since there is only one teacher to a public school class, the student to teacher ratio is very unbalanced. The teachers cannot be watching all the children all the time. The socialization is not constantly being monitored. One of the biggest concerns is bullying. And again bullying can happen anywhere at any time, especially with the internet. Kids are under enough pressure as it is, they don't need the pressure of feeling like they need to fit in to a specific crowd.
Homeschooling

I myself took school in online homeschooling, I am not denying that it is beneficial for some students. But I would argue that it is a net negative. I am definitely open to different opinions, which is why I accepted this debate :) Looking at the education arguments presented, I don't see how you could find that an online education or book driven education is more or even equal to that of a classroom at public education. These teachers have gone through college for years, no reasonable amount of special training would get a parent to that level of knowledge. To further my point, no matter how available the curriculum is available to the public, it doesn't mean anyone is able to teach it or mold it to their child's needs. This is why you must go through developmental psychology in college. This is also why the public has not made any real and beneficial changes to the curriculum. On to the socialization argument. I feel that this is where your point of view crumbles. You claim that there are many opportunities for socialization. I had already brought up the counter to this in my opening statement, no matter how many extracurricular activities these children do, they simply cannot stand up to the level of socialization public school children get. These homeschool groups are just one day of school socialization a week, and are always much smaller than that of an actual school. These stances would be justified if your second point of this argument stood true. "I would even argue that when a child goes to a public school they may be exposed to too much socialization." I could not find a credible article that would support this claim, it is just simply not true and has been disproven countless times. The main treatment for social anxiety, whether that be generalized or something specific like agoraphobia, is exposure to social environments.
Homeschooling

Briefly, I would like to ask if there is anything I could say to possibly change your mind on the subject? How much education does a teacher have to have over a homeschooling parent? Should they have special training specifically on how to teach children, or are you just saying that they have more of a general education and therefore more knowledgeable in general? I would refute that by saying that there are countless resources online to help home school parents. For instance, the program K12 is an online course that teaches all grades and the parent merely needs to supervise and answer questions when needed. It is basically an online public school, but is considered homeschooling. This kind of program helps children go at their own speed. Even without an online course like that, there are many book resources such as the A Beka Book curriculum. It is specifically made for home schooled kids to understand and do at their own personal pace. As for socialization, there are many types of social interactions your children can have. Most cities have home school groups that parents can get in touch with. some groups even do a once a week school which is just one full day of school a week. Usually this is run by other home school parents and not certified teachers, but that goes back to my other argument about good home school books that easily be found online. This helps to solve the problem of socialization. I would even argue that when a child goes to a public school they may be exposed to too much socialization. When a child is home schooled their amount of socialization can be monitored by the parent and based on the specific needs of the child. The parent can get in touch with other home school parents and they can plan educational play dates to the zoo or the museum so that the children are getting interaction with other children
Homeschooling

The crux of my arguments are going to be arguing the notion that public school teachers are better than the parents of whichever child. There are many reasons for this. The moist obvious example is the training teachers have over parents. Even elementary school teachers receive years of education on child growth and development as well as psychology. Not only that, they are required to keep up with new education of their field. In addition, public schools have plans in place for students ahead and behind of the learning curriculum. This also ties in to the qualification argument, the average parent will not be able to recognize or teach according to where the child lies on the spectrum. The second main argument I will be advocating for it social skills development. It only makes sense that homeschooled children are more inept when it comes to social situations. Yes, parents can try to make up for this by participating in community events, but regular school children also do these as well. This means they will always have less experience socially. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Homeschooling

While public and private schools offer a great education, there are many benefits to homeschooling. I believe homeschooling can be a much better form of education for young kids. (Thank you for doing the lay out. I am very new to this) Opening Statement: As I stated, homeschooling can be more beneficial than public or even private school for a number of reasons. For children, there is the advantage of teaching in a specific way for a specific child. Different children learn different ways and with home school the parent is in control of what their children learn and when they learn it.They are able to discern what method of teaching is best for their child. They are also able to have one on one interactions and be able to spend more time and energy helping the child learn than a teacher in a public school could. Having a home school education can help later in life as well. For example, the US Army and the US Air force give special benefits to those who have been home schooled.
Should gum be allowed in school.

Continuation of A4My opponent concedes that almost anything could be used as a distraction, but gum is just too big of a distraction. His only evidence of this is that "everything about gum is very distracting." So far the things he claims are distracting about gum is that it can be chewed loudly and that children are distracted by passing gum around. I will refer readers to examples I provided of other classroom materials being used in the exact same way(drawing on desks, playing with hair, passing notes). My opponent did not show any reasons why gum is an exception from any other classroom materials.Continuation of A5Even if not every child cares enough to look at what is in their gum, my opponent's point does not sufficiently negate the resolution. The resolution my opponent is arguing is that gum should not be allowed in school. His point would only hold weight if he was arguing for only allowing gum without aspartame. A rule can simply be put in place that only allows apartasme-free gum. It would be the same as a rule saying that drinks are allowed, except for alcohol. If anything other than alcohol is allowed, a resolution arguing that drinks should not be allowed falls apart.__________________________________________________________________________________________________A3 and A6 have been dropped. Before this debate goes into the voting period, I will wish my opponent the best of luck. He definitely did argue well for this being his first debate.
Should gum be allowed in school.

a:5 Yes well not every kid would look at each packet of gum just to find the right one and most children gum has aspartame in it. Yes everything can be used as a distraction but gum is a big distraction. I've never seen kids do any of those examples in my class and instead of not allowing those examples they should not be able to do distracting stuff with what ever it is. But everything about gum is very distracting.
Should gum be allowed in school.

It seems as though my opponent has conceded all of his arguments, save A3. I will deal with his new arguments and then proceed with my refutation of A3. A4: the passing of gum is a distraction from the teacher and other kids which can lower gradesPassing gum? Again, I refer my opponent to my refutations of his A1 and A2 but with a slightly different twist. Passing gum in school is not something that is done only with gum. If someone's cold someone might want to pass them their jacket. Ban jackets! Someone's pencil falls on the ground and he asks someone to pick it up for them. Ban pencils! The mentality that because something could be used as a distraction is reason to ban it is fallacious. Anything can be used as a distraction in some way[1]. The possibility to be used as a distraction is not grounds for it being banned. A5: Gum can cause headachesMy opponent brings another point, arguing that it can cause headaches and thus cause children to get lower grades. The ingredient in gum which causes headaches and other negative symptoms is actually aspartame. A very quick Google search showed that one is able to buy gum that does not contain the ingredient. If the resolution was "Only aspartame-free gum should be allowed in school" my opponent would have a point. However, since there is gum on the market without the ingredient[2] my opponent's argument falls short in negating the resolution.A6: There are better ways to get fresh breathe.This is more of an add on to my opponent's A5. He argued that because there are other ways to attain fresh breathe, getting the side effects associated with apartasme are not worth it. However I will again refer my opponent to my source [2] to show that there are types of gum without the ingredient.Continuation of A3My opponent continues this argument by writing specifically: "i know that its not the teachers problem if a student has TMJ but if I were a teacher I would try to avoid getting sued by guardians of the kids." He very interestingly turns this into a liability issue. But his argument runs into a problem. If a child develops TMJ from chewing gum, it is more of a liability issue for the manufacturers of the gum and not the school. If a child brings a peanut butter sandwich contaminated with salmonella, the school is not at risk for being sued in that it did not provide the contaminated sandwich. Likewise, the school is not held liable for food that a child brings from home.[1]Pencils-- Trying to balance it on your nose.Paper-- Building paper airplanesBooks-- Drawing innapropriate picturesHair-- Braiding it, brushing it, twirling it, playing with it....Desks-- Drawing innapropriate picturesShould all of these items be banned because they have the possibility of being used distractingly?[2] http://www.zappgum.com...
Should gum be allowed in school.

Yes well the passing of gum is a distraction from the teacher and other kids which can lower grades, lot of kids in my class pass gum and its very distracting, Gum can also cause TMJ [jaw joint disorder] says medicinenet.com.i know that its not the teachers problem if a student has TMJ but if I were a teacher I would try to avoid getting sued by guardians of the kids. Gum can also cause headaches says aspartamefreegum.com.By getting a headache you cant really focus on the teacher so it will lower grades. Also a lot of kids want fresh breath but there are a lot of other ways to have fresh breath like brushing your teeth before school. The aspartame in gum has the total amount of 7000 caused symptoms says aspartamefreegum.com.these are the reasons why I think we should not have gum in school. I would also like to say that my opponent did very well.
Should gum be allowed in school.

I don't think gum chewing should be allowed in schools because a lot of people smack and make lots of noise.The disposal of gum isnt good either.I go to school and there is gum under tables,chairs, and on the ground.Chewing gum can also cause a lot of dental problems like TMG [a jaw disoder] annd dental decay.If you look on gum packets there is a lot of surgar thats what causes dental decay.
That a begnign form of eugenics would be beneficial to humanity

Hello and welcome. This debate will have for its topic whether or not a benign form of eugenics is an avenue of benefit for humanity in its current state of affairs. Our resolution will be as follows:That a benign form of eugenics is beneficial to humanity in its current state of affairs. My job as pro will be to uphold this resolution; to demonstrate that, in fact, it is the case.Con will have to show that, on the whole, a benign form of eugenics is not beneficial to humanity in its current state of affairs. Terms Here, a benign form of eugenics, specifically, refers to a hypothetical statute(s) which will regulate who is allowed, in any given population, to have children. No prescriptions or mandates will be given which force any individuals to selectively breed with another with the aim of producing any filial generations with favorable genetic traits. Any further inquiries on the nature of this form of eugenics can be discussed within the debate. However, it is noteworthy to point out that the overall aim of this eugenic practice will be to disinter and eradicate any undesirable genetic traits/disorders, as opposed to increase the frequency of any favorable genetic traits in the population. Moreover, that certain individuals, demonstrably unfit for caring for any child, should be prevented from coming into any position where it is required of them. Beneficial here can be define as favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. current state of affairs can refer to any state of affairs that can be factually linked to man and the historical window of approximately one hundred to two hundred years from today. However, man's ecological state of affairs (globally) will be of primary interest for Pro's case.I thank everyone for having an interest, and I'd especially like to thank my opponent for taking the time to discuss this very interesting topic with me. I look forward to a stimulating debate.
Society has created mental illness.

Mental illness was not created by society. Even though mental illness cases have risen, It is wrong to say that society has created it. Serval illnesses can be seen that are made biologically through parents. Depression is caused by a fault or mess up in the brain. Society isn"t responsible for this being created when evidence exists that there is physically some sort of mess up in the brain. On the topic of Anorexia, Or any sort of eating disorder, It is definitely not made up by society. It is people"s choices whether they believe society and their perfect image or body weight. Society may cause some mental disorders BUT do not CREATE them Autism, ADHD, ADD, Ect. Are all mental illnesses people can develop or they are born with them. Society can CAUSE mental illnesses, Like depression and anorexia because of cyberbullying or societal pressure, But society did not create these illnesses that affects you. It makes no sense. Society should not eligible for peoples decision.
Society has created mental illness.

Even though society has created pictures of how people look, It's our choice whether we listen to it or not. Social media plays a big part in what we say and do, But its our own choice whether we want to fall into the trap of society opinions or make our own. Good health starts where we live, Where we work and learn, And where we play, And it's our choice whether the society we live in is effected in a good or bad way. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 24. 6 million Australians have media platform, Facebook. It has been linked to mental health issues, Mainly suicide and depression. These only happens because of the way that people think. It is their choice as to what they think and say. The internet has made way for mental health problems, Yes, But society has just continued to talk about what has already been said. Mental illnesses go way back before the internet and social media, It isn"t something that has just been developed. Our views on society need to change.
Society has created mental illness.

Use of phone use with social media has been linked to depression, Anxiety, Low self-esteem, Sleeping problems, Eating issues and increased suicide risks Suicide rate has grown 25% since 1999 with part of the blame lies on social media In the year 1999 the first real social media platform hit off. Blogs Instagram makes young kids and teens feel self conscious about their bodys and how they look Now that all these models are posting "perfect" pictures teens constantly compare themself to them Some people feel triggered and get angry at other people over the internet People constantly are being bullied over online websites which increases the suicide thought rate A study by the lancet psychiatry shows that people who spend time on there phone at night not only get sleeping problems they also get mood problems and rate themself as less happy and more lonely
What made us what we are now is because of nature and not because of genes

Your statement is good but sad to say you're wrong again. "PHYSICAL APPEARANCE"? Yes! Nature can change our physical appearance! Let me give you an example. An American, He has a white skin and he transfers to Philippines to go for a vacation. He keeps on swimming, Sun bathing and keeps on going somewhere that is hot. After few months his skin changes. Even if it's just an example, We can't deny the fact that It's happening in reality. Nature made us what we are right now, Physical and mental.
What made us what we are now is because of nature and not because of genes

You're concentrating with the mental appearance of a person. Let me remind you, What made us what we are now is not all about mental appearance but also Physical appearance. Now i want to give you an example which proves that what made us what we are now is all because of genes. Me, I'm an American my Skin is white, I'm tall and my eyes is green. You think it's because of nature? no it's not! It's because of our genes.
What made us what we are now is because of nature and not because of genes

What you've said is right and at the same time it's also wrong. It's not all about the genes that really made us what we are now. Is there anyone who was born with a Criminal mind thinking? I don't think so, All of us was born neutral. It's the nature who influences us because of the fact that we need to live. People become criminal, They steal money,food or other resources that can be sold to gain their needs and to be able to survive. "Survival of the fittest".
What made us what we are now is because of nature and not because of genes

Exactly :) Now it's all clear to me. What made us what we are now is all because of our nature. Thank you sir for having such a wonderful debate. It's my first time to join, I'm sorry if i wasn't able to make it harder for you. What we need to do is to take good care of our nature because he made us what we are now. I salute you sir @Merlito
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy.

matter is space, and space is time - matter =/= space =/= time [*]. matter is energy, that is my argument, without a balancing point you can have no positive and negative energy, thats like taking the wires of the light bulb, and the light still keep on shinig, not possible without a power source - matter =/= energy [*] balance is positive and negative, but balance is also the opposite of positive and negative, and positive is the opposite of negative - balance can’t be both something & its opposite! the wire is balance, there is a positive and negative wire - &? => Pro’s entire case is incoherent illogical & completely unrelated to the resolution. Thus, Con wins. => Vote Con. [*] Google Dictionary.