BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
homework should not be banned

1.""homework is not always a waste of time. There can be plenty of interesting assignments which allow students to improve skills developed during the classes". This argument is virtually moot in this debate round, teachers can assign these things but they have not, and independent study, and a push towards extracurriculars solves all of these issues." Teachers have already assigned these things. In fact I'm debating because it was given to me as homework and I find it very interesting and educating. If this assignment wasn't given to me by the teacher I would not have been able to learn different opinions on big issues, controversial topics. Some students are interested in one subject more than in another one so they would probably like all those extracurriculars but only for the subjects they are interested in. Teachers can't force everyone to come to extracurriculars but they still need objective measure of students' performances evaluation. Homework provides this opportunity. 2.""but if your hard work is also valued it motivates you even more" This argument makes sense, however it does not work in my opponents favor, if teachers give ribbons for students who achieve high scores on tests, basically the same affect is achieved, and therefore students do not need to be given homework." There can't be tests during every class but homework is something that is being checked on everyday basis. So there's an opportunity for teachers to encourage constant improvement. 3.There is simply not enough time during every class to achieve all the goals of the course. Teachers provide students with all relevant information but it's students' duty to search the material further. "Practice makes perfect" but there is a difference between practicing in class and at home. Students need to learn how to work without any guidance so they can succeed in future jobs. 4.Education is a process that never stops. We learn in class but we can't just switch off the information we get there and forget about everything till the next class comes. If we get home, relax our minds and then repeat the material it would only do best for us. Practicing in different atmospheres helps students to adapt better to different circumstances. Therefore homework is necessary and should not be banned.
homework should not be banned

1.Homework is not always a waste of time. There can be plenty of interesting assignments which allow students to improve skills developed during the classes. There is a huge diversity of tasks that might be given by teachers: researches, getting information from different sources, writing essays expressing individual opinions, participating in debates, watching videos and writing reviews. Some tasks might even challenge students, make them think creatively and improve their ability of critical thinking. Doing homework given by teacher can be as exciting as studying independently. 2.Yes, if students are self-motivated they will be studying hard, doing independent researches, but if your hard work is also valued it motivates you even more. Not every student is active and extroverted. Some of them need to be pushed in order to fully use their potential. 3.By checking tasks that are given as homework teachers can see what student struggles with, what are his/her strong sides are. Teachers then give constructive criticism and advice that helps students to improve their skills. 4.There are sometimes big assignments such as paperwork that require patience or tasks when you need to just memorize some facts, statistics. By doing these kinds of homework students learn how to deal with things they are not comfortable with. It teaches them how to work scrupulously and finish everything they've started.
homework should not be banned

1st before we begin we must define what homework is: an assignment given to a student to be completed outside the regular class period, this is according to the merriam websters dictionary, one of the most premier dictionaries. According to this definition studying outside of the class-room, and extra-curricular involvement do not count as homework. Thus my plan: Homework should be banned, but teachers should emphasis extra-curricular involvement, and independent research. Defense: 1. The pro's argument based on the importance of self-study is virtually moot, because students that are motivated will still be able to get involved with activities outside of the classroom that would allow them to understand the material. 2. Homework does allow students to practice what was done in class, however student studying can also help with that, therefore this point is also moot. 3. "Homework teaches discipline and responsibility" This argument is non-unique yard work, and house-hold activities can do the same thing. 4. "You need to learn to work on your own" this argument is also a flawed construct, if students have to be assigned homework in order to learn how to work on there own, they are not truly self-motivated, and they will not be able to succeed once students are not given homework. 1st: There is no bright-line, students are at school for nearly half of there day, if they cannot learn in that much time, than there is teaching flaw, and not a student issue. 2nd: It limits creativity: When students are wasting time doing mindless homework they tradeoff time they could use applying the skills they have learned at school. Instead of wasting time writing a literature paper students could be having debates about books, or instead of people spending time on calculus homework, they could be applying that in a construction setting. 3rd: homework prevents students from developing: students are on a permanent training wheel, and they never fully develop, they do not learn how to study on their own, and they do not learn how to pace themselves.
Hillary should be in Indicted for her crimes.

You can end this debate like a child all you want, but my point is not wrong. If the subject of this debate was whether Hillary should be elected than her possibility of indictment would be relevant. But the topic of this debate has to do with her being indicted not her eligibility as a candidate, so her stance as a president has nothing to do with this debate. The best way to explain this to is with the square/rectangle analogy, a square is by definition also a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. And what were talking about here is 110 emails marked with classified out of 30,000 (http://heavy.com...). Which is less than half of a percent of the emails. And in those emails only a handful were correctly marked to begin with, so while mistakes were made. Not even the FBI believes that this adds up to a felony charge. Now back to benghazi, not acting in a country that the US had no place to be in in the first place does not equate to breaking the law. Specifically what law do you suspect she has broken? She does not have the full power of the US military as secretary of state, and once their was conflict the president was briefed and also chose not to intervene. The head of any department is responsible for any failures along the way, that does not mean they perpetrated a crime. I read your source on the FBI and it says they consult with other agencies but it does not say they answer to those agencies. The FBI was founded to act separately of the DOJ and is not required to work with them. They get government funding and are overseen by the DOJ but that does not mean they have to follow their commands. Comey had not even informed the DOJ of his decision not to pursue charges into Hillary.
Hillary should be in Indicted for her crimes.

I will remind Con the purpose of this debate is to argue the idea of indicting Hillary Clinton, not her eligibility as a candidate. So her your first paragraph is irrelevant to the scope of this debate. Now, as to the second paragraph, James Comey stated that she made a mistake, a mistake is not the same as breaking the law. She did not intentionally leak classified documents like in the case of Edward Snowden, so she did not violate a law there. And then once again Con goes into the argument on whether or not a candidate who is under investigation should be elected, which is a debatable topic, but not the topic of this debate. And on to benghazi, once again what law are you arguing she broke? The idea of jeopardizing more American lives seemed like to great of a threat and after the attack began it was no longer in Clinton's power anyway, at that point it was a military decision which would fall to POTUS. Now in your whole intro you made no claim as to what law she broke, and to your final argument. She did not get a free immunity card, she spent more time defending herself from congressional review than any person under trial would. She was investigated, and found not to have broken any laws by an independent agency that does not answer to anyone outside of the FBI. Therefore she should not be indicted for any claimed violations of the law.
Time Travel

I agree with the Pro's definition, however, the only way time travel is currently possible is by travelling faster then the speed of light. Just think about it. How can we possibly go back in time? How is it even possible to understand the engineering principles or anything behind this. It doesn't make any sense. And most importantly, where would we land if we built this impossible machine. Time travel must come with a destination, and finding how that works will take a long time, probably won't even happen until we build a Star-Wars like ships.
Time Travel

If anyone else is interested in taking up the debate, say it in comments or via PM.RulesFirst round is for acceptance and definitions only. If you want to challenge a definition I made, please talk about it in the comments first before posting your round.No semanticsBOP is sharedNo kriticsIf either side can't post an argument in time, he/she must not forfeit the round, but instead post a small message in the round itself and explain why he/she couldn't do the round. If the opponent agrees, the person will be able to post their argument in the comments under 24 hours of the time their missed round was supposed to finish.PremiseI will be arguing that Time Travel, through either one of its means, is possible/logically reasonable for human beings to accomplish.DefinitionsTime travel: the action of going back or forward into the axis of time to enter a different time period. Example: going from year 2012 to year 1547, or from year 254 to year 4532.Either one mean: any functionality under which time travel is described to be working, whether it be real or fictional.Possible: something that is doable. Contrary to impossible, which is undoable.Logically reasonable: is within reason and human logic.Accomplish: successfully perform an act.
The Earth is expanding

Understanding requires one step at a time. Now that you know that the aether exists and have admitted that it does exist. Then you are only one step away of understanding that the aether must be composed of something. Well, I am showing you what it is made of so you don't have to try to work it out yourself. I have done all the research and put in the hard yards so that you can see the true structure of reality. "If every particle in the universe has one color, Determined by their spin, Then why can two things made of different materials be the exact same color? "Sub-atomic structure is where light comes from. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world. The sub-atomic world has 3 states. These 3 states are represented as red, Blue and green. Note - Different materials may share the same sub-atomic colour or their colours may be different. Who knows? The human brain has hard wired this information processing into our subconscious so we have no control over it. The brain can instantaneously process millions of bits of visual colour information and tell us what the object is. "Why would they ignore something that is so important to the functioning of our universe? There's no motive. "The science world NEEDS the universe to be COMPLICATED. That's why they have ignored the existence of the aether and the single particle hypothesis. In order to get funding, High income and gain status; the science community must pretend that the universe is a very complicated place that requires lots of expensive machinery and devices to explore it. Thus, We have the Hadron Collider, LIGO gravity wave research, Quantum computer research and Fusion reactor research. All these things are based on the false assumption that the aether doesn't exist.
The Earth is expanding

I just read the Ether and the Theory of Relativity, And I have to give ground here. I accept that the aether is not completely fictitious. But what Einstein describes is not a single particle that makes up the entire universe because of how it spins one way or the other. I can't accept your color argument. You said "This is because the universe only has 3 options to chose from which are left spin, Right spin and no spin states. Thus, The human brain uses these and codes them as red, Blue and green which are the primary colors. " If every particle in the universe has one color, Determined by their spin, Then why can two things made of different materials be the exact same color? I think we are reaching a point where we disagree on such a fundamental level where we cannot convince the other of our standpoint. You say "The science world has ignored the existence of the aether. " and this is where I cannot continue the debate. The "science world" as you say, Is right. Why would they ignore something that is so important to the functioning of our universe? There's no motive. It wouldn't make sense for them to ignore something apparently so easy to test for you can use a relatively simple device like the one in the article you cited "http://etheric. Com/grusenick-experiment-proves-existence-ether/". If aether was all the things you said it was, The "science world" wouldn't ignore it like you claim. I will not resign, Because you haven't even started convinced me, But I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you.
The Earth is expanding

I'm sorry about the out-of-context quote. The source that I read misrepresented it and I didn't realize it was irrelevant. But I would prefer if you could refrain from insulting me. I try to find the best sources I can. While the quote did not apply to the situation, Einstein disagreed with the principle of aether. The concept of luminiferous aether requires the aether to move faster than light but Einstein's Theory of Relativity directly conflicts with that (1). The second source is dated 2015 but I'm pretty sure all of the sources it uses are from the 1990s. I don't really follow your "rule of threes" argument. Black holes have nothing to do with antimatter: they are just matter gathered in a gravity well. And there are four states of matter: you forgot plasma. E=mc^2 is about the relationship between energy and matter, Not light. I see several problems with your anti-continental drift argument. The earth was newer and there was stress on the environment due to meteorites. The magma under the crust was hotter and anomalies were common. I couldn't find the video you referenced, But anyone can post things on Youtube so in general I don't take that as a credible source. But even if they are right about the rocks near the fault lines being younger, I think that is because of volcanic action and plate spreading. Plate spreading causes lava to emerge near the surface and since it most often occurs in water, The lava cools into rock (2). Rock does come from fault lines, But there is no force or extra matter pushing the earth outward. I don't want to belittle your argument, But I don't think your 'rule of three' discounts my fusion reactor theory. If aether creates rock and lava at the center of the earth due to pressure, Why doesn't the same thing happen in fusion reactors, Where conditions are similar in pressure to the center of the earth? Bibliography: 1. Soedarto, Gatot. "Albert Einstein Began by Rejecting the Ether Theory" April 2016, Medium, Https://medium. Com/@GatotSoedarto/albert-einstein-began-by-rejecting-the-ether-theory-2e0d8ff8a812 2. NP, "Plate Tectonics" 2015, National Geographic, Https://www. Nationalgeographic. Org/media/plate-tectonics/
The Earth is expanding

The two sources that you cited have several problems. The first source has no scientific backing, And has only been published independently. The second source is old and is now outdated. I'm not sure I accept aether as a valid argument. When asked about aether, Einstein once said "God does not play dice with the universe" and no major university has agreed that aether is real. You say that the reason that the earth is in a molten plasma state is that " correct me if I'm wrong here " antimatter and matter are pulled towards the center of the earth by gravity where they fuse releasing E = mc2 energy. Or was it positive and negative aether particles? Either way, I do not think that aether is real, And antimatter only exists in special conditions, And if there was any antimatter in contact with air or any other matter, It would explode. Also, E=mc2 applies to the binding nuclear energy of the atom. Matter can be converted into energy following that formula. It does not apply to 'negative and positive aether particles' Besides, I think the continental drift theory is completely sound. Can you propose a reason why it is invalid? Also, The center of earth is liquid, Not plasma. I have one last point to disprove the existence of aether: fusion reactors. Fusion reactors replicate the pressure in stars to fuse atoms into hydrogen, Releasing excess energy. But you have claimed that aether under intense pressure creates mass, And that extra mass expands the earth. Wouldn't scientists have noticed mass building up in fusion reactors whenever they are turned on? While no fusion reactors are currently functional, One in China has created 6 times the pressure and heat in the sun.
The Earth is expanding

"Gravity is the principle that objects are pulled towards each other with force proportional to their mass. " Pulling is an old concept was started in the horse and buggy era when it was thought that the horse pulls the buggy. This is a false concept. The horse actually pushes the buggy via the strap which is across the horses’ chest. Thus, The concept that the Earth pulls the moon with gravity is also a false concept because pulling is an illogical process which requires voodoo magic for it to work. There are no ropes or strings which attach the Earth to the moon. Therefore, There is no mechanical mechanism for this magical pulling action to take place. A far more logical reason for the moon to rotate around the Earth is by a pushing force which is in a state of approximate equilibrium. This pushing force would be actuated by the medium of aether which so called 'empty space ' is comprised of. Note - Experiments by Prof. Von Martin Grusenick have confirmed the existence of aether. Note - Gravity is aether flow which is flowing downwards towards the Earth's centre. Thus, To measure the aether you need a rotating interferometer which is vertical in relation to the Earth's surface. The Michelson - Morley experiments were all conducted with a horizontal placed interferometer. Thus, These experiments were all conducted with a false assumption that the aether was flowing sideways across the Earth's surface. Thus, If you want to measure a flowing river you would align the water wheel with the flow of water and not at a 90 degree angle to the flow. Thus, All the experiments of Michelson, Morley and Dayton Miller produced null results. "Another flaw in my opinion with the expanding earth theory is the conservation of energy. The law of Conservation of Energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (2). As the earth expands, Where does the extra matter come from? " Note - The aether supplies the extra mass. Aether is made of positive and negative particles which are both spinning at the speed of light. Therefore, They are interdimensional. They are pushed together by the gravity of large celestial bodies such as planets and suns. When these particles stop spinning, It creates a hole in space which other spinning particles rotate around. This is called 'matter’. This occurs above the sun's surface because the sun has a very strong gravity. This same phenomenon occurs at the centre of the Earth because our gravity is much weaker. Thus, Gravitational pressure causes the 2 opposite spinning particles to stop spinning which releases E = MC squared energy. That is why the centre of the Earth is in a molten plasma state. And that is why the Earth is expanding. References are in the comments section
The Earth is expanding

I'm just curious about what exactly you believe. Is the earth round, Is the common interpretation of gravity correct, Does the earth spin? It's just that when discussing non-mainstream ideas like this, People often are unclear about the terms on which they think what they think. But let me present my argument first. Gravity is the principle that objects are pulled towards each other with force proportional to their mass. If the earth was expanding, Gravity would steadily be getting greater. Also, How quickly do you think it expanded? Currently, The earth weighs 6x10^24 kilograms (1). How long ago was it 1 kilogram? Another flaw in my opinion with the expanding earth theory is the conservation of energy. The law of Conservation of Energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (2). As the earth expands, Where does the extra matter come from? Bibliography: 1. Author NP, "How much does Planet Earth Weigh? ", Date NP, HowStuffWorks, Website, Https://science. Howstuffworks. Com/environmental/earth/geophysics/planet-earth-weigh. Htm 2. Author NP, "What is conservation of energy? " 2018, KhanAcademy, Website, Https://www. Khanacademy. Org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-energy-tutorial/a/what-is-conservation-of-energy
God does exist

Since my opponent is Pro, he has the task of defending the resolution, "God does exist." That means he needs to do two things: 1. Provide a coherent and reasonable definition of God. 2. Provide arguments and evidence in support of God's existence. I will argue that he has not accomplished either of these tasks successfully in his Round 1 post. The closest he has come to defining God is when he described God as "love." However, this is not a definition of God, since God as traditionally conceived is a transcendent being who is enormously powerful and knowledgeable, which love is not. So, this is not a reasonable definition of God. It is equivalent to defining God as "my pet rock" or any other random thing that any reasonable person can see exists. He appears to admit that he cannot accomplish obligation 2, defending the resolution with arguments and evidence: "If you want me to find you solid proof of God's existence then I ask you to find me proof of a spaghetti monster. Pointing out this mysterious figure above the clouds is a myth." If my opponent admits that he cannot meet his burden of proof then I should be judged the winner of the debate. Nevertheless, he does mention an argument I made in a previous debate about aliens. You can see the context for that remark here: http://www.debate.org... Note that my opponent does not mention that I also brought up the possibility of a human scientist with a time machine going back in time to plant DNA in the primordial soup. This does not have the problem he mentions, because it does not require an original creator. He also does not mention that I made objections to the premises that required bringing up the alternative of aliens, which renders his objection moot. And then there is the possibility that we just don't know where the aliens came from, which is surely a better alternative than invoking God. I conclude that my opponent has neither offered a satisfactory definition of God nor offered satisfactory arguments for God, and therefore that he has failed to meet his burden of proof.