BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
year round school

.. ======== First off, year round schools is a school year that every 45 days, the children get 15 days off, not including Saturday and Sunday. ======== Some of the pros that I see are as followed; 1. Less summer slide; It"s easy to spend all of summer break on Facebook and on Netflix (except, of course, the last day of break, which is crammed with all the summer homework you should have been doing). There"s nothing wrong with having fun"you deserve it, after all"but months without learning lead to what is called the "summer slide": the loss of academic knowledge over summer break. Students at year-round schools avoid the summer slide (or, at least, suffer from it less) because summer is shorter. Instead of spending three months forgetting how to speak Spanish or do calculus, they spend two months or one month. When they get back to school, everything they learned over the last year is still somewhat fresh in their heads, at least compared to students at schools that use a more traditional calendar. This results in less review at the beginning of the year and more actual learning. 2. Longer breaks; The school year, though extended over a long period of time, is still 180 days long. Time taken out of summer break is spread across breaks throughout the year, which means two and a half school-free weeks for fall, winter, and spring. The I"m-free-at-last feeling that usually precedes summer break comes at the end of each quarter at year-round schools, and it"s like Christmas every ten weeks. 3. No summer boredom; Summer"s nice, but let"s face it: At a certain point, it can get boring. After watching every episode of Doctor Who on Netflix, re-reading every Harry Potter book twice, turning into a prune in the pool, and sleeping for twenty hours straight, there"s really nothing to do. School might be a pain, but at least it"s something, and every summer, there comes a point where you"d rather be in school"learning, socializing, and being a productive human being"than in front of your computer, reading every single post on your Facebook news feed for the sixth time that hour. Students who go to year-round schools may or may not experience this feeling, but certainly, any summer boredom that they do feel is reduced significantly. =========== Sources; . http://www.theprospect.net... ========== Thank you
1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) thus maths ends in contradiction

I will remind my opponent again that the units are important. If 1 number + 1 number is taken to be a normal mathematical expression, then one should add up the number of numbers while disregarding the values of the numbers. Thus 1 number + 1 number = 2 numbers, just as 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water. If my opponent wishes to imply synthesis in 1 small number + 1 biggish number, then the result is 1 larger number, where the unit of the result differs from that of the operands. This would become an informal representation of the synthesis process rather than an actual sum. 10 + 20 = 30 is different from 1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30); the units of the operands are uncertain (but assumed to be common to both operands and the sum), rather than 'number' as in 1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30).
1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) thus maths ends in contradiction

con says "a) Join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount: b) Put together (two or more numbers or amounts) to calculate their total value:" it is very simple if this was an orthodox maths con would accept that 1 apple + 1 apple= 2 apples so + means add together now dean uses maths idea of + to show maths ends in contradiction 1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) Thus mathematics ends in contradiction
1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) thus maths ends in contradiction

My opponent states the + means 'add together'. I looked up the Oxford dictionary. Here are the (relevant) Oxford definitions: a) Join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount: b) Put together (two or more numbers or amounts) to calculate their total value: By saying 1 number + 1 number = 1 bigger number, you are doing a). You are combining the two items into one single item, analogous to combing one drop of water to anther drop to create a bigger drop. If we were to apply b) to 1 number + 1 number, the result would be 2 numbers. This is because the unit in this sum is not whatever units 10, 20 and 30 carry, but 'number'. We should be summing up the numbers of numbers, not the values of the numbers. Thus 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water in this sense; we are adding the number of drops, not the water itself. These are two different senses of 'add together' and thus obviously work by different principles.
1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) thus maths ends in contradiction

con says "Now, my opponent actually presents two sums: 10 + 20 = 30 (this is the counting sense of +) This results in: 1 number + 1 number = 1 larger number (this is the synthesis sense of +) "10 + 20 = 30 (this is the counting sense of +) it is really very simple + means add together so when we add together 10 a number with 20 a number we get 30 a number or 1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) Thus mathematics ends in contradiction
1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) thus maths ends in contradiction

I am of the belief that my opponent's argument is based on a disguised replacement of concept. I base my arguments on empirical analysis. There are two similar but different operations that + can perform. The first one is summing up one or more discrete or continuous data. I will coin this the counting sense of +. 1.1cm + 2.2cm = 3.3cm (continous data) 4 people + 6 people = 10 people Note that two items of different units cannot be summed up in this type of addition, unless a conversion is executed (for continuous data) or the name of a superset is used (for discrete data). 1.1cm + 0.22mm = 1.1cm + 2.2cm = 3.3cm 4 boys + 6 girls is impossible. It must be changed to 4 kids + 6 kids = 10 kids Note that an indefinite unit of something can also be viewed as discrete, thus: 1 pinch of salt + 1 pinch of salt = 2 pinches of salt (as the two pinches must not be assumed to be synthesised in the counting sense of +. The second one involves synthesis. + is used as an informal representation and I will coin this use the synthesis sense of +. Examples: 1 Dialect + 1 Army + 1 Navy = 1 Language (informal numerical representation of 'A language is a dialect with an army and a navy') 1 pinch of salt + 1 pinch of salt = 1 larger pinch of salt (the two pinches are combined together) 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 larger drop of water (the two drops of water are combined) Coffee + Tea = Milk tea (the two types of tea are combined) Note that in all of the above cases, the unit of the result is different from that of the operands. Now, my opponent actually presents two sums: 10 + 20 = 30 (this is the counting sense of +) This results in: 1 number + 1 number = 1 larger number (this is the synthesis sense of +) Removing the units, we have 1 + 1 = 1. As the units (and therefore context) were removed, the reader will assume that it refers to the counting sense of +, wherein the sum would be invalid. However, the + here is actually used in the synthesis sense, where the result has a different unit from the operands. If we were to use + in the counting sense, 1 number (10) + 1 number (20) would in fact produce 2 numbers (10 and 20). 1 + 1 = 2 is still satisfied.
1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) thus maths ends in contradiction

australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean shows 1+1=1 thus maths ends in contradiction http://www.scribd.com... most say the most certain of things is 1+1= 2 but 1+1=1 1 number (10) + 1 number (20) = 1 number (30) Thus mathematics ends in contradiction
Arizona has created a culture of racial bias in the U.S.

Noob snipe.First and foremost - I WILL LIKELY FORFEIT A ROUND - AND IF I DO, IT IS BECAUSE I VALUE THE NATURAL HUMAN NEED TO SLEEP. People need to sleep because of many reasons, although the core reason hasn't been determined, although it is likely to refresh your body, refresh your mind, and allow the body to repair itself. [1]C1: CASE:"Arizona has created a culture of racial bias in the U.S." Arizona joined the USA in 1912. [2] Although my opponent may be correct to say that Arizona harbors some racism, the resolution is that it created a culture of racial bias.Racism has been a stain on America's heritage ever since we started. Consider slavery, which ended in 1865 after the North won the Civil War. Slavery w/ African Americans was certainly a form of racial bias - a bias to ONLY enslave blacks. HOWEVER, Arizona DID NOT EXIST at this time period. Therefore, Arizona DID NOT create a culture of racial bias. We have made steady progress at reducing racial bias in our society (Civil Rights Acts, new Amendments to Constitution, First African American president, equality for all, etc.)However, my opponent has said that Arizona CREATED a culture of racial bias. Clearly, slavery, segregation, and prevalent racism existed since the nation was formed. It was around before Arizona was a state. Therefore, Arizona DID NOT CREATE A CULTURE OF RACIAL BIAS. Thank you for your time.Voters, please vote CONtra Sources:[1] http://www.helpguide.org...[2] http://www.infoplease.com...
Do trace amounts of egg and milk in vaccines cause egg/milk allergies in infants

Most vaccines contain small amounts of egg and milk in them as the viruses are grown in egg and milk broths. Milk and egg allergy are becoming common in infants and it could be because the trace amounts of egg and milk in vaccines are making them allergic, as Charles Richet demonstrated over a hundred years ago that injecting a protein into animals or humans causes the immune system to sensitize to that protein, and that exposure to that protein in the future can result in allergic reactions or anaphylaxis.
Woman Should Get Drafted

From the title, one would assume that your stand is woman should NOT get drafted, at all. Well, I'd like to start by showing how my country work regarding this issue. In my country, at the age of 18, everyone, regardless of race or gender, will randomly be selected for army training. The boys would be trained, as they are in every country. How about the girls? They DO get drafted. Some of them would end up in the platoon too (Keep in mind that the male and female platoon is separated for obvious reasons). However, how about the other girls? You need to know that during wartime, the important stuff that happen isn't the war; it's the data transfer, data gathering, and planning. That's where the other girls come in. This involves a lot of work, from secretary duties to planning. I believe that girls should be drafted too, for this very reason. True, maybe some girls might not reach the physical capacity of a male, but there are many more available job. Snipers, computations, secretarial, and even planning. These jobs don't work on their own, you know. Also, when you said "Or at the very least they should have to pass the same tests that men pass to be in combat roles", it doesn't help your case at all, as you're against women being drafted. If such test is available, wouldn't that mean girls can/will get drafted?
Dark Chocolate is better than Caramel

Pardon my ignorance. I was typing another debate. Chocolate has benefits, it has various properties that can be good for the heart and taste quite delicious. However, you might ask: Does it not cause diabetes? I'd ask the same, caramel is basically solidified sugar. The more sodium intake, the more chances to obtain diabetes. Caramel can be too sweet while chocolate has various flavors, even spicy.
Major religious acts should be banned

Major religious acts should not be banned. I don't know where you live but in the U.S.A. banning religious acts, no matter how major or minimal, is actually illegal. I agree that there shouldn't be wars because of religions, and I also respect people that have different sexual orientations than my own. (Even though I am Mormon.) Furthermore, I don't believe there is a single religion that makes it a major religious act to hate homosexuals. As well as that, what you believe major religious acts should be banned, guess what some of the biggest religious acts in the entire world? Christmas! Hannukah! Kwanza! What you are calling for is banning several holidays as well. No one has any right to how people think. Sure it's frowned upon, but you can not ban people eating Hawaiin Pizza. Sure, some people may not enjoy it and it may be frowned upon, but you cannot ban someone's opinion. You cannot illegalize someone's thoughts and control them. For example, using your own argument against you; say someone hates another person because of who they are, the Hater being Person A and the Hated being Person B. Sure, maybe that's how Person B wants to be, but that's also how Person A wants to be and you shouldn't morally be allowed to change that no matter how much you debate the topic. What you're calling for with your argument is not only illegal, it is impossible.
The movie frozen is overrated

Rebuttals "it doesn`t matter it is an amazing movie" Not only is the grammar in this argument horrible, but the argument itself. Saying it's an amazing movie is all subjective, and you couldn't even prove it was. I on the other hand proved that "amazing" is too good of a word to attach to this movie. Please at least try to create good arguments, or it will feel like I am debating myself. Arguments Frozen has quite high ratings, and as I have already touched on, the ratings are too high for the movie. Not only is the storyline bad, but the way they created their twist. SPOILERS AHEAD! WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD! Basically, almost every movie has a twist. Something that will surprise you, something that can change the entire story. Frozen is one of these movies with a twist. However there is one main issue; it was a horrible twist. So when you watch a movie, and a twist happens, you want it to be unexpected. However there is supposed to be "build up" to the twist. Basically, there needs to be little hints about the twist. However in Frozen, it was the opposite. In this movie, you realise the prince who Anna loved is really the antagonist. This twist was unexpected, which is good, unless it's random! There was no build up to the twist whatsoever. It really seemed like the prince loved her, as you can see in the pictures below. The prince being the antagonist had no build up, and was random. It's like if olaf were to be the antagonist. This twist was horrible, and had no build up. Though unpredictable, it was random, ruining the point of a twist. Sources from last round:1. . http://www.rottentomatoes.com......2.http://www.imdb.com......3.http://www.rogerebert.com......4.http://www.imdb.com......5.http://disney.wikia.com......(Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack)
Abortion

So a 31 year old girl is charged with attempted murder for trying to self abort her late term fetus while Planned Parenthood never gets prosecuted. Problem there is no real comparison between that this woman allegedly did and what Planned Parenthood does. It also doesn't address your proposition abortion is murder. First the girl tried to abort a viable fetus. States can restrict and even ban in some cases late term abortions when the fetus maybe viable outside the womb. Such abortions are extremely rare and are almost always done when the mother faces life threatening complications if she were to give birth. Second Planned Parenthood does not do late term abortions. Of the abortions Planned Parenthood and most providers do are in the first trimester and some in the second trimester before the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. To abort a non viable fetus is not murder. But if you believe it is murder you must accept for your claim to be taken seriously and not as meaningless rhetoric a woman who has an abortion must be punished. To say the woman is the victim is patently absurd. When it is the woman who agree for the abortion to be performed on her body with the known intent of killing her unborn baby. Further she has paid for it or someone with her knowledge has paid for it. That is a capital offense for which the girl should get the needle. To reject that is to reject your own proposition If a teenage girl decides to abort her baby, pays someone to kill her unborn baby because it is inconvenient for her to be pregnant and for otherwise selfish reasons should she be put to death. She is who chose to murder (as you would describe it) her unborn baby. You can't credibly describe her as a victim
Abortion

Just last year, 2015, in the month of December, Anna Yocca, 31 years old attempted a self abortion using an untwisted coat hanger. The baby survived, but will have lifelong medical issues. She was charged for attempted murder. Now, when Planned Parenthood does the same thine, attempts to kill a baby, and succeeds, they are not charged with murder. In fact, they are praised, and receive money. What"s the difference? Let me answer that for you: none. Abortion is against women's rights. While many think that women should have the right to choose if a mother conceives, they are missing a few details. Many women have an abortion to become "un-pregnant". Abortion doesn"t make you "un-pregnant".. Abortion makes you the mother of a dead baby. Also, half the babies killed are women, where was their choice in the matter!? Women"s right my butt! Right to choose? THAT"S A LIE! Babies don"t choose to die!
The Existence of God

My proof is more questions than answers. How does a zygote have the same genetic code as an old person? How do life forms exist in all of their complexity without God? How does gravity exist? How do all of the planets revolve around the sun while turning in place. What or who made the big bang happen? How does an organism evolve into another species? Why do identical twins have differing personalities? Science is awesome, but so is God.
New Member Tournament: Abortion

Second try at this debate because I set the wrong round numbers. My apologies. Resolution: A woman has the right to choose whether to abort a child. I will be arguing for women's choice. Con will be arguing against women's choice (pro life.)Round 1: Acceptance, definitionsRound 2: Opening Arguments, rebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals, Closing Arguments. DefinitionsWoman: An adult female over the age of 18.Right: a just claim or title; whether legal, prescriptive, or moral [1]abort: to bring forth a fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable; miscarry. to fail, cease, or stop at an early or premature stage. [2]1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Is technology helping students learn

Con HAS CONCEEDED. The resolution. "Is technology helping students learn"Cons own words. "Funny because my school uses I pads and more than half of them are playing games"That means that Half of the students ARE BEING HELPED BY TECHNOLOGY TO LEARN. Agian the topic is"Is technology helping students learn"I have provided a video in which students are learning by technology. Con has admitted that it helps some students learn.
Is technology helping students learn

But you are stating that you are a student and it's helping you learn but what about all the other students who don't learn because of technology and the topic is is technology helping student(s) see that s at the end that means more than 1 so you said even if their is one student who is being helped then all students are being helped that's what you are basically saying like if you don't play games then fine but there is a ton of other students not being helped by all the distractions
Is technology helping students learn

"I Am a student too and my whole school is playing games in class so I think that you just telling me that you are a student doesn't say much because if you say that you are a student then your argument is invalid"Let's refer to the topic at hand."Is technology helping students learn"It's irrelevant if your whole school is playing games.Even if there is 1 student who is being helped by technology to learn my proposition is valid.
Corporal Punishment of Children

(Judging by your opening statement, one could infer that you think children should be physically punished when they misbehave. Do you feel that parents who never physically punish their children are perhaps negligent?)I agree that physical punishment "will get your point across." But what point is that? That undesirable behavior is best dealt with by a beating, inflicting pain. That if you don't like someone's behavior, you should beat them, inflict pain upon them? That it does not matter if your behavior is criminal, but only whether or not someone dislikes your behavior?You say:"A little physical interaction with your kid will help them know their right from wrong."The fact is, though, that punishment will not help a child know what is right and wrong, but only that if someone doesn't like what they do, that he or she can expect to be physically punished. You can get anyone -- and most animals -- to act or not act in certain ways by inflicting pain upon them. A child will act or not act in certain ways in order to avoid pain. But this does not mean that they have acquired any knowledge, or that they have come to understand anything. (Kids do NOT understand beatings. Any adult who says "My parents beat me, and it did me good," is someone who has been beaten into submission. No thinking human should ever be grateful for being beaten.)Physical pain is not the basis upon which people should be taught to choose their actions. Punishment is not an effective tool for producing good people. People who beat their kids do not do so because the kid has committed a crime, but because the kid has displeased them. This is NEVER a justification for inflicting pain upon someone, child or adult. If someone does something you don't like, the most you are entitiled to do is discuss it, express your disapproval. Kids who are raised correctly will avoid behavior that displeases their parents. If my disapproval of my son's actions is not enough to guide my son away from those actions, my beating him might make him afraid to commit those actions again. But I don't want him to base his behavior and values upon fear. You have no justification for hitting anyone as a result of how you feel about their behavior. No one has any right to hit anyone. (We are not talking about self-defense here.) There is no right of parents to beat their children -- just as there is no right for me to beat anyone else of whose behavior I disapprove. Adults have rights to be safe from harm. And children should have these rights as well.And more importantly: why on earth would an adult want to hit a little kid? Why would any adult feel obligated to inflict harm on a kid? Especially a kid that you LOVE? If you truly love that kid, it would be impossible to purposely cause him or her ANY kind of pain. And there ARE parents who fall into this group.
Corporal Punishment of Children

Children should be subject to corporal punishment because of many reasons. One reason being it will get your point across without being to forceful. A little physical interaction with your kid will help them know their right from wrong. If they had a bad experience doing something good or bad they will tend to do it less or not at all. So if they did something bad and you used a little physical interaction to show that their actions are not tolerated and will not be tolerated. It could be only beneficial as long as the physicality doesn't increase or get to violent. Or if the child isn't old enough to receive such punishment for their behavior. However I also feel the parent should be allowed to be able to discipline their child however they want as long as they aren't endangering the child's life. Or like previously stated if they are old enough to receive such discipline and not to much physicality.