BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework

Why do children need to get homework. I am always at work and I don't really have time to help my child. Can't they just do it in class? Then the teacher gets mad at my child for having the answers incorrect, well if you explained to her on what she has to do she would have gotten it right. I understand the importance of homework but at leas give them one she from each subject rather than five. Please comment on what you think, I am open minded on your opinions. And tell me what I should do about this. Thx😀
Homework

It's a shame, really. Being con, and having a debate title as Homework, I will just give one argument stating how we should not have homework. Homework takes away the opportunity for the student to ask questions to their teacher and make sure the steps they are taking to reach an answer are correct. It also can be redundant. If a student knows his material, the homework is not helping him. If a student does not know how to complete the work, the homework is also not doing anything for that individual. Apologies to all those reading this debate, or lack of one.
Automatic weapons should be banned

This will be a debate on whether or not civilians should be able to possess and use automatic weapons. I will be taking the side of con (Arguing for the civilian possession of these arms). Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Constructives Round Three: Constructives and Rebuttles Round Four: Rebuttles (no new arguments) Automatic weapon is defined as so: any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user. http://www.slate.com...
We should destroy all of those compoturs

IZE HATES APIZZAAA!@!!$@I LIKE XHEESCAKE!!!!ANSWER ME PRO DO YOU LIKE PIZAAAAAA.I HATE PIZZAAAA!!!The Computer provides access to the Internet and virtually none ending library. this helps Education in EVERY government on the earth in a big way.Communication - Most everyone wants world peace, to have that, you must have communication, the computer provides that INSTANTLY.Vote COANANNDNAD NAI LIKE CHEESCAKE!!!!! :pTHIS IS MY FAV FONT! (<---- That's my fav font )
We should destroy all of those compoturs

Butt butt butt butt... Caampators help is talk and eb samrts and... Pizzaa I like pizza do youi like pizza pro? Aya wnat to haer a horny joker?If pro is the opposite of con is Progress the opposite of congress? OMH that joek was so kornyu! I like pizzza.camputars allow us ot debate this like we are right nowaayou sholud destroy your comtutur and sotp tis deabate beofre it kaills you!!!!!!!!!!!ZOMG ITS A ZOMBIE ... Zombie pizza... two gay guys were walking in hell and teh were gay. I LIZKE PIZZA
We should destroy all of those compoturs

Compoturs do not exist so you cant destroy them Definition of Destroy Put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it. Completely ruin or spoil (something). now I'm not a complete arse so I will give reasons why COMPUTERS should not be destroyed. and since I do not think my Opponent will debate this with me I will debate MYSELFWhy they should - http://www.forwardon.com...Why they shouldn't - http://shalita84.hubpages.com...
It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

This debate has turned into a critic, despite my efforts and presentation of points. But I guess I shall continue and prove that I was right in my assumption of the thesis, and that it was my opponent who veered off topic. First, my opponent has highlighted a few words that I have thought unnecessary to the meaning of the thesis. I would therefore, in order to fully satisfy my opponent, alter the simplified thesis to the following. "If something is not percievable to one, it is arrogance, not logic, to refute it." However, even this uselessly altered thesis points to my presumption, and PRO's efforts to change it prove futile. I would also like to point out PRO's statement, containing "I can understand Him(God)"(sic), as grounds for inter-religious heresy. Here he clearly and definatively stating that his mind is capable of percieving God, who is regarded by a majority of major world religions as 'above the human mind' and 'impercievable'. If my opponent has any respect for religion or God, he would do well to apoligize in the comments, unless of course he presents an established church that shares his views and sees humans as better than God, or present proof that he 'understands' God, and therefore reserves the right to oppose him. I would also like to define 'percieve', as my opponent seems as if he would benifit. Percieve - "become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand." Notice that one can only be aware or conscious of something if one has some form of proof for it. If one doesn't have any form of proof, even your own testimony, then one has not effectively percieved that thing. My opponent has not provided any points. My opponent has not bothered to rebut my point. My opponent has spent his posts criticing his own debate, and calling me names. I think this should ultimately decide who has actually put in effort for this debate, and who deserves to win it. Thank you, to all viewers. And please cast your vote.
It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

If YOU cannot perceive or understand something, then it is arrogant to refute it. Not, If something is unperceivable. I can percieve God. anyone is capable of it. I can understand him. "So the stand is, "If you cannot understand God, then you should not be opposed to him."+ "And your attempts to attack the aspects associated with the personality of him which are globally, historically and culturally known and believed in, Are in fact impudent attacks, void of substance. - " that lack of substance being your lack of knowledge. You seem to have joined a debate without Accepting it, and are cock blocking a formal debate regarding eh subject. and still have not presented an actual argument against my Clause.
It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

I have actually accepted this debate, yet I can see it is quickly turning into a critic. The full thesis, as stated by PRO in round 1, is as follows: "If you are not able to understand or 'perceive' a God, or anything for that matter, it (sic) is arrogance and not (sic) ignorance(sic) or logic to refute it." The simplified, less confusing thesis. Translated into human language: "If something is not perceivable, it is arrogance, not logic, to refute it." As something that cannot be understood or perceived excludes anything that is solidly backed by proof, we can assume that the following thesis remains true to the original version: "If something is not provable, it is arrogance, not logic, to refute it." According to PRO: my opponent wanted the contender to argue, "against something one (sic) doesn't know about without being insolent."(sic). This, of course is ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS, and was not stated in the original post. Therefore, this thesis is ruled out as invalid. Furthermore, my opponent attempts to highlight me as "arrogant", "not knowing anything about probability," and "trolling". May all voters take this into consideration when casting their decisions. Now to the actual rebuttal. If one can call it that. This may be defined by some as a point of contention: "My opponent does not know anything about probability in this case. He does not know what the parameters of God are. How can he refute it." I would like the audience to notice that I am not claiming to know the parameters of God, nor am I refuting them. I am simply saying that: because no evidence of God has been observed (making him 'not perceived'), we can statistically deduce that he doesn't exist. As I have done this with logic, not with simple arrogance, the thesis is fulfilled completely towards the CON side. "It is NOT arrogance but logic that allows me to refute anything that is not yet perceived." I expect a decent rebuttal from PRO, not a simple critic nor forfeiture of debate. I did not accept this to watch him back out, but to debate a topic. Thanks you, and apologies to any offended parties.
It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

He thinks that he is going to troll me and say that, "HE is actually lacking evidence or proof and not that he IS attacking something that he doesn't know about. " which was the context of the discussion. My opponent does not know anything about probability in this case. He does not know what the parameters of God are. How can he refute it. Arrogance. get this troll off me. I want a real contender to argue that, "You are argue against something you don't know about without being insolent. " enlighten me. Please someone invite me to a debate. I win by default, my opponent is trying to change the pretenses of the debate, AND ignore the actual ones.
It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

I will be arguing that to deny an imperceptible, or not supported by proof, God is in fact a logical response. My one and only point: "Absence of proof is proof of absence" This is not just a general rule of thumb, but can be proved statistically using the probability theorem. As I don't expect many viewers to be interested in mathematical equations, I will provide an visual explanation. . http://rationalwiki.org... In this diagram above (which I hope is visible), the green circle represents the space of possibilities - think of it as a set of possible universes, and we don't know which one we're in. The orange circle represents the group of possibilities in which a hypothesis - let's call it H - is true. A red dot represents a universe in which we observe some piece of evidence - let's call it E. A blue dot represents a universe in which we do not observe this piece of evidence. Looking at the diagram, it is clear that observing E is evidence in favor of H. This is because there are proportionally more instances of observing E inside of the orange circle, which represents H, than there are outside of it. In other words, if you see E then you know you're in one of the red circle universes, and because there are more red circles in H than outside of it, it's more likely that H is true. Conversely, not observing E means that you are in one of the blue circle universes, so it is more likely that you are outside of H. This means that failing to observe E is evidence against H, because it decreases the probability of H being true. Thank you. I now expect rebuttal from Pro
It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

If you are not able to understand or "perceive" a God, or anything for that matter, It is arrogance and Not ignorant or logic to refute it. You cannot stipulate that I did not do something, and avidly defend that claim by rejecting me until I prove it without acting Insolent. It is not Reason or principal to attack it as a means of reaching the truth. That form of communicating with God will render God's response eternally mute. He doesn't associate with people who are no crude. So the stand is, "If you cannot understand God, then you should not be opposed to him."+ "And your attempts to attack the aspects associated with the personality of him which are globally, historically and culturally known and believed in, Are in fact impudent attacks, void of substance. As we are all aware of the things you consider to be oxymorons, conflicts and contravercial - yet we understand him, and as you have yet to understand HIM, you shouldn't be barking."
There are no contradictions in the Bible

For those links, you just pointed out two verses but one is in Luke 1 and the other of the Crucifixion, so you still didn't specifically say what verses you want me to focus on. "can you please demonstrate this instead of just positing it without offering any evidence whatsoever to account for that?" Sure, by observing and comparing each Gospel, each one has it's own unique theme (1) As for Mark 16:8, it explains why this is not a contradiction Matt. 28:8 "The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to give the disciples the angel's message." The women were scared at first and didn't tell anyone, but then rushed to deliver the message to everyone. Like i said, there are clearly no contradictions in the Bible. You had no rebuttals for the ones i already resolved. Sources: 1. http://www.crossway.org...
Bioshock is Extremely overrated.

Thanks for the response. Although you've conceded the argument, I'd still like to address your rebuttals really quick.WeaponsI don't think that, to be a key feature, something has to be the main thin you use. The plasmids certainly made an impression, and was an intriguing feature. Simply put, I think that the plasmids could still be considered a key feature while still being a bit of a side arm.EnemiesWhat I meant was that the enemies could be made up for by other elements of the game, not the gameplay.ConclusionI want to thank my opponent for providing the opportunity to revisit and re-evaluate the game. I will admit that while you agree it wasn't overrated, your argument left an impression on me as well. Your arguments made me look at the game more realistically, which I think was one bit of success for your argument. I hope to perhaps debate you once again in the future on other things, as well as from you in general (on the forums as well).
Bioshock is Extremely overrated.

Responses yet again: Weapons:Well then in that case, you've stated that plasmids are more or less sidearms, and plasmids being a key feature, is kind of contradicting the whole argument.?????Enemies: Can you please elaborate on those elements that compensate for the narrow AI? Like taking out a camera in a firefight and snapping at enemies like paparazzi? Jack: Fair enough, I'll agree with Con's statements concerning jack. Im going to have to agree with Con's overall argument, and conclude that bioshock is not overrated. There is simply not much more i can debate about and so i close my argument . Thank you for accepting the argument and taking time to debate it. :D In fact now, I'm going to play through it again, with this debate in mind to reconsider my opinion on the game. Thanks again.
Bioshock is Extremely overrated.

Just for fun, my first debate :D Now as many people know Bioshock is a very high rated game, and received very High reviews scores and generally positive reception. However i believe this game does not deserve the equivalent of a 9.5, or 4.5 stars e.t.c but more like a 6.5 and 3 stars. This is why: Many people are initially amazed by the games "never-before seen" setting and artistic direction, as well as the "intricate" storyline and great sound design. However i fell many people oversee the most important component which is gameplay, which in my opinion is a overdose of shallow rpg horror elements forced to coexist with pointless mini games/side-tasks that eventually destroy the actual intended genre of FPS. For example the guns in the game feel very weak and run out of ammunition all too frequently, and although this is realistic, once you've mastered the plasmids, these guns become virtually useless and therefore contradict the "first person "SHOOTER:"" title. Now we'll move on to Plasmids, which by the way are more or less generic&violent fantasy fairy-powers. With that being said, the enemies we use them against are also a drab. The AI comes into two classes IMO: Gun class and melee class. The gun class as the name suggests are all the enemies that are capable of ranged attacks, these foes tend to just strafe and fire wildly, and seemingly with pinpoint accuracy. Whilst their close range counterparts just scream and rush you, then attempt to bash you to death in a "Call of Duty- Esque" fashion. And if you happen to die due to those attacks, you'll be revived by a vita-chamber, which imo is the single largest problem with gameplay. Dying in this game becomes less of a consequence of foolish acts and more of a really good way to effectively make the game more narrow, repetitive, easy and linear than originally designed. Im not quite sure what the Dev's were thinking when they decided to put this in. Im also not sure what the Dev's where thinking when deciding on the character you play as. This shadowy, voiceless protagonist seems to have no reaction to anything that occurs in the game, such as stabbing an oversized needle filled with coloured fluid into his wrist. Also the other characters in the game such as Fontaine react to seemingly nothing, and you have to guess what your character possibly could have done to cause these reactions. The brainwashing phrase "Would you Kindly" is a very cheap way to explain how your character decides to execute all these events, which made me feel like i was simply pressing the "pause" and "play" buttons on a DVD remote rather than actually controlling a protagonist and influencing the story. I felt as of the entire game could have played out without me, which left me with a unsatisfying feeling when i finally completed the game. So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Are my points valid? e.t.c.... thanks for reading.
the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

My source to previous round: . http://www.justislam.co.uk... My opponent has not provided any sources to prove he's statement is true, looking at the first paragraph. Nevertheless, I have stated in my previous round that the Hadith is unreliable and the translators have made a mistake while translating. The main book (Qur'an) makes no promises for getting "bunch of virgins upon death". I have also stated this earlier. If something is immoral, it does not mean it is false. Using my opponent's logic, many people, and religions are false because they are immoral. Based on the definition of false, (not real or genuine), it has NOTHING to do with morality, thus proving my opponent's statement false. My opponent has not clearly stated WHY having sex makes the religion false, or even immoral. What is wrong with having sex? It is a biological need for a species to survive and reproduce, and it gives off pleasure both emotionally and physically. Having sex contributes the human race.
the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

"Even though the Qur'an does not mention the number of virgins, it does say in verse 56:36[27] that Muslim men will be awarded with virgins in Paradise. The Qur'an describes their physical attributes, for example they will have large eyes (56:22) and big breasts (78:33)[20] and so on. The actual number of houri is thus a minor issue and 72 is the number of those houris confirmed in multiple hadith. The hadiths are a crucial part of Islam and certain Muslims ignore them because sometimes they contain uncomfortable details about Islam. There are many hadiths and Qur'anic verses which talk about various issues of a sexual nature. According to Sahih Bukhari 1:5:268 which belongs to the most authentic collection of hadiths, Muhammad himself was given the sexual strength of 30 men and so on." i know i can't deductively prove islam is false. but if i can show it has wrong aspects according to more objectives sources of morality, then it shows evidence of it being a false religion. as to the christian points. it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins, that witchcraft and crusades and halocause and beheadings was to be practiced. that is the personal sins of people, not reflective of hte religion itself. killing sabbath workers and homosexuals is an old testament judaism teaching, not chrsitian belief. marry the rapist was old testament judaism and reflected their cultural norms for protecting a woman who wasn't a virgin any more. i never said islam was false and other religions are true, all i have the burden to argue is that islam is false.
the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

"i know i can't deductively prove islam is false." My opponent has stated that he cannot prove Islam is false, but only by the immorality of the religion. As I have stated before, that logic is false, based on the definition of false. Therefor, there is no way to prove that any religion is false, purely based on the morality. My opponent has not clearly stated why having sex after death shows the religion is false, or immoral. Sex, is a biological need in order for a population to thrive. I fail to understand the viewpoint of my opponent's definition of false. Perhaps my opponent can explain WHY having sex is wrong upon death the following round. " it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins" Please do correct me, but I believe my opponent is implying that "getting a bunch of virgins upon death" was unofficial teaching? If so, then there is no evidence, even based on morality that it is a false religion. To clear up the confusion, I will provide my sources related to the "bunch of virgins upon death". In the Qur'an, (fundamental holy book for Islam), there is nothing that states that you will be awarded with 72 virgins upon death. Instead,it was the translators fault for using other sources such as the Hadith (the Qur'an is a more import and and superior text than the Hadith). With that said, the fact of "getting a bunch of virgins upon death" is false. Which means, now the tittle of this debate is false, and there is no way to prove Islam is false. ". it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins, that witchcraft and crusades and halo cause and beheadings was to be practiced." With the sources I have provided, killing people on Sabbath is on Exodus 31:15. It is in the New international Version, and King James' Bible. Same applies to Witch burning, and killing homosexuals. Marrying a Rapist can be found in New international versions. (Deuteronomy 22:28). As for Hitler, he thought he was doing it for god, and he was a Christian, even though its not a teaching in Christianity. Same applies to Charlemagne, even though its against Christianity to kill the innocent, those people are considered Christian because of their faiths. The reason why I brought this up is because those are not "official teachings", and yet based on your logic, the religion is false. (Because 72 virgins upon death is not an official teaching, yet on your logic, if it is practiced, the religion is false) That ends my round.
the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

i know i can't deductively prove islam is false. but if i can show it has wrong aspects according to more objectives sources of morality, then it shows evidence of it being a false religion. as to the christian points. it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins, that witchcraft and crusades and halocause and beheadings was to be practiced. that is the personal sins of people, not reflective of hte religion itself. killing sabbath workers and homosexuals is an old testament judaism teaching, not chrsitian belief. marry the rapist was old testament judaism and reflected their cultural norms for protecting a woman who wasn't a virgin any more. i never said islam was false and other religions are true, all i have the burden to argue is that islam is false.