BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework should be banned

School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework will reap great rewards such as a favourable test score or report card. Why are we posing such a ludicrous question about the possible abolishment of homework if doing homework is what it takes to succeed in school? It is a common emotion to students regarding the distaste of homework, but legions of teachers know better because they recognize the importance of homework in the success of students in school and outside of school. Not only does homework accomplishment benefit the student, it also benefits the teacher as well. Teachers receive the opportunity to see at what stage the student is by assigning homework. Furthermore, the teacher can identify the weaknesses of the student so they can ameliorate their study habits in hopes of pulling their grades up. On the other hand, if teachers were to abandon the idea of homework altogether, they would have to base the majority of the student's mark on tests alone. However, students fare much better in the homework column than the test column; otherwise, their marks would be lower Conclusively,that is the reason it should not be banned
A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

There's are sense of irony in what she says, loves Milo are person himself has said that the one in four statistic as false when he was quoted as saying on live television "To say that there is a "rape culture" implies that there is a system or environment that encourages rape. That does"t exist on American college campuses. And to believe in the statistics that feminists pedal, that one in four, one in five women is going to be sexually assaulted in her time on campus, you"d have to believe that American college campuses have rape rates that approach those of the Congo, where rape is used as a weapon of war. We don"t reward rapists in our society, we put them in prison." Well oneinfourusa.org states that it happens on college campuses, I don't see your argument there. When I mentioned sexdous and crime, I planned on making a connection. When men are afraid of false accusations, technology has advanced enough that it culled overall crime by half and rape by one-third. There would be less crime that is obvious enough but how does relate to the topic 'A plan to prioritize arming girls'. Well my opponent has suggested violence against women or trans-women are high and are increasing. Like I stated before crime has and will continuously decline. Men are now checking out of society because they fear being falsely prosecuted for something they didn't do, so I doubt crimes would increase. https://www.hrc.org... states that 2016 saw only 23 transpeople and 27 in 2017 murdered these number shouldn't make this a problem to prioritize. My opponent would state that I'm simply just dismissing their deaths, no I'm simply stating that it's not a big problem to be prioritize. If a women trans or not whom are wary of their safety, can go get a gun license with a good reason in mind from the police. Funny enough Milo is a transphobe and it's hard for me to see your point when you say that you like him. Well some people like Milo and me aren't just going to throw basic biology just because it hurts their feelings. All I'm going to say is, thank for debating. Well I know I'm not using a conventional structure. I'm a student at a liberal school, well I feel liberated for debating such a topic. My teachers are strict with topics so, thank for the debate. P.S population of America is 323.1 million in 2016, divid 323.1 million by two then multiply the answer (161,550,000) by 1/4 or 0.25 and you get 40,387,500 now compare it to the FBIs stat which is 95,730. It's a big difference. https://ucr.fbi.gov...
A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

Crime rates in the west has lowered dramatically, http://www.wired.co.uk... states in their article that "In many developed countries, crime has halved overall," and continues by stating that it is technology that is preventing crimes. Rape itself had down by one third. I'll make a bet that you believe there is a patriarch in which which women are oppressed and I'm just exploiting my male privilege. Well there is no patriarch and I'm just using my right to speak. You know what is a privilege, a woman making fake rape allegations and ruining a mans reputation even if there was no reason evidence. Jemma Beale, aged 25 was jailed for making fake rape allegations against 15 men and successfully ruined their lives. 'You are a very, very convincing liar and you enjoy being seen as a victim,' as quoted by the judge shows that she played the victim card to spark attention. She was clearly a feminist, who hated men and clearly deserved the prison sentence but what I'm trying to say is that a woman has the privilege to accuse a man of rape and manage the to ruin their lives, this is becoming more common. Here two articles and a video http://www.news.com.au... https://www.google.com.au... Video by hunter avallone https://m.youtube.com... This victimhood complex has been used by liberals a lot from legitimatizing violence against others (Antifa) to scare people into not using there voice (SJW). Men today a now turning away of women because of feminism, this is called sexdous. Sexdous is becoming more and more common as men are now more afraid of having their lives ruined by fake accusations of rape, sexual assault and harassment. This has lead them to live with their parents, more stereotypically in the basement being absorbed in porn and video games instead of going out and meeting people. Milo yiannopoulos' article on the subject. Part 1 http://www.breitbart.com... Part 2 http://www.breitbart.com... Well I'm happy to find common ground with us both agreeing that there is a set age. But should it be a a priority to do so, if a woman is wary about their safety that is a reason. But it shouldn't be a priority to arm all women. One minute you liberals want to restrict guns, now you want to give out guns to civilians. In addition my opponent has suggested again I am a misogynist, if you want be me to clarify then you should of asked. I never said that all women are part of antifa and are SJWs. this a generalization made by my opponent which took something I said out of context instead of asking for clarification on the matter. Another technique that liberals use, take something out of context and then call them names. Well I suggested that transgendered people should go to psychiatrist or psychologist, well they should because it is a mental disorder called gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria. P.S o Oneinfour.org is run by liberals specially a bunch of feminist P.S.S It states 'college women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.' Underline college because that is where most false accusations of rape appear.
A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

Sorry I may be nitpicking but at least I use a bit of logic. Your argument as quoted "he cringes at the idea of women being afforded armed self defense when she has reached the maturity to take the training and apply it in real life" is incorrect because you took something I said and took it out of context. At the end of my argument I stated not without a license/permit/certification by police, so you didn't even read my argument at all. Proving that I don't cringe at the idea of women being given firearm to protect themselves, I'm cringing at the fact that you are trying to paint me as a misogynist. Calling me names is not an argument but an meaningless insult. So return to preschool. P.S Liberals/Democrats/Leftist loved to call people names instead of argue against them with logic. P.P.S learn to take criticism mate
A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

Traditionally this is where I welcome an honorable opponent and invite open and honest dialogue as we search for truth. Today it seems the guy who clicked the I accept button for this debate was raised by well meaning adults who wanted to get their spoiled daughter a pony for Columbus day. They had little money or experience but were welcome by band of roving gypsies who offered a pony at a fair price. The little girl quickly learned the pony was actually a Jackass and wated nothng to do with him. For an animal who was repeatedly abused by women it is not surprising that he cringes at the idea of women being afforded armed self defense when she has reached the maturity to take the training and apply it in real life. That is my theory as to why his argument looks like greasy semi-solid turds that were sprayed across the screen and the kicked ad licked to hide his meaning. Since I am fresh out of rubber boots and gloves I am not going to order the argument for him, I will give him another chance. Donkey, please take a some time and sort out whether you object to reasoning or my solutions. Brain storm and imagine what I might say back to your argument. If you have a stronger argument that would be made relevant by my argument then set the bait, If your argument would be weakened or destroyed you need to fix it or eliminate it. If your only objection is to including trans-women then maybe you could offer an amendment with a different solution.
A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

I don't believe that women or trans-people are specifically targeted for any reason at all. Your proposal is quite dangerous already. Yes, women are biologically weaker doesn't mean that they should all be armed. With SJWs and Antifa running around it would just cause more senseless violence. Your argument about transgender people is utterly stupid as you state that people murder them in hate crimes, no people don't. If there is anything a person should do is help they get they delusions of being something that they are not. Most people are not stupid well not enough to ignore basic biology and transgenderism is based on a mental disorder, so get a psychologist. Your argument on single mothers is fine and makes a bit of sense stating that they need to protect their children. But stating girls are less like to commit crimes is not an argument. "Women are more likely than men to be in prison for fraud and robbery, while men are more apt to have committed violent crimes. Almost one-third of all female prisoners are behind bars on property charges vs 18 percent of male prisoners, according to 2012 Bureau of Justice statistics." - www.vocativ.com/usa/justice-usa/crimes-women-commit-most-often/index.html, as you can see men are more responsible for violent crimes than women, end of the story. You also stated aggression between the sexes, females are less aggressive while males are more, not true. Females are more verbally aggressive than males but males are physical more aggressive. Stating one is while other not is untrue. My source www.nytimes.com/1983/06/20/style/aggression-still-a-stronger-trait-for-males.html also states that most physical aggression among males are other males, so you saying females are getting attack is only applied to a small minority. Adding to my point most physical aggression among women are found against their spouse, children or siblings and it is more likely to happen in their household. Connecting this fact to you your argument about single mothers, I believe not. Should we arm females? No, not without a license/permit/certification by police. P.S who wants are feminist with a gun in her hand vote for the other person
A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

Whereas, Women are weaker than men; Acts of violence against woman are likely to be perpetrated by a man; and Handguns reduce or eliminate the advantage men have over women in strength. And Whereas, Trans-women are disproportionately likely to face abuse or assault; Trans-women are more likely to be murdered in a hate crime; Statistics show murder rates of trans-women are increasing; and Trans-women are more likely to have negative interactions with law-enforcement. And Whereas, Law-enforcement is more effective when it is trusted as an institution by the community it serves; Trust builds from positive interaction, Children base their initial perceptions and assumptions about the world on the beliefs of their parents; Single-parent households, frequently the mother, are becoming increasingly common; and fire-arms training is an effective means to develop rapport and trust with women, who pass this trust onto their children and shape the norms of the community. And Whereas, the younger a woman becomes familiar and competent with a firearm, the longer she will benefit from this knowledge; In nature, defending her children and self is a typical feminine role, Girls mature faster than boys; Girls are less likely to be aggressive or commit crimes than boys. Therefore be it resolved that the legal age to own a handgun be lowered from 21 to 18 for those who are female, or have taken concrete and ongoing actions to transition to female. Be it further resolved that a funds be provided to 70 counties sheriff departments to develop and implement firearms training for women and trans-women within their jurisdiction; Parishes, counties and municipalities wishing to have a pilot program funded for a minimum of three years will submit proposals detailing the need, expertise, efficiency and ability of their proposed program to the United States Department of Education; The Department of Education will select the most compelling proposal from each state, and an additional 20 from any state or US territory.
God is good

Sorry, I didn't read the rules closely and was assuming I had 72 hours to reply. Also, didn't you say in the opening that religion shouldn't be used for debate yet you quote the bible or did I read that wrong too? Okay so you first say that God is good by referencing bible quotes, which wasn't written by God, only by his believers. Therefore, anything that is in the bible concerning God is an opinion of him. Those who wrote it, such as the disciples, didn't know God personally, they knew Jesus, a man who said he was the son of God. Also the bible was assembled by humans, not God, so this makes the bible even more opinionated. Also, since those who make the bible and decide what is in it, they won't go putting anything in there that shows God in a negative light. And I don't judge God's goodness by my happiness, you are absolutely right when you say how we aren't the center of the universe (well technically I am the center of my universe but that's from a physical standpoint, not figurative). However, if we aren't the center of the universe, who is? According to your bible, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27 NIV). According to your bible, we are his creation. So why then does God not help humankind? I don't speak for my own happiness here, no matter what happens I realize that I have it better than others, but to me that is the fault of my own and my parents. But why do other people have it so bad? For example, look at all the poverty in the world. There is enough food and water for everyone, yet people still die of starvation and dehydration. Why doesn't God do something about that? Some Christians might say that they'll be rewarded in heaven. If that is true, then that shows that God doesn't care about the lives of his human creation and is therefore, ambivalent as I am proving. If God is all powerful as your religion believes, then why doesn't everyone have enough when there is enough? God can intervene, as, according to your bible, Jesus created an unlimited supply of food (fish and bread) to feed a crowd. If God does care but can't do anything about it, then he isn't all powerful nor a god. Therefore, I assume that he just doesn't care. God will sit back and let whatever happens happen and not interfere. Look at all the genocides in history. Now why would a caring God let that happen? Finally, you say that he brings the good out of suffering and tragedies. If God is all powerful and good, then why doesn't he prevent them in the first place? Also it isn't God who donates money to a relief fund or goes down to build houses, rather it is the people who do that. Also you say that God is the source of everything good, which in a sense is true as God started the universe off (whether it be from your point of view with Adam and Eve or mine with the big bang). However, it isn't God acting or guiding someone when they do a good deed. It's because an individual wants to do it.
God is good

I also assume that by your first point that you simply mean the Bible or the Quran, physical works that can be referenced. I will put forth the dictionary definitions of God but I am currently unsure on whether you mean god or God (the god worshiped in Christianity). I can debate either but please clarify before you give your arguments as to avoid any confusion. God- the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe [1] Good- morally excellent [2] [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
God is good

I like to debate upon if god is good.Any contender who like to debate with me should follow the rule. 1st,religion shouldn't be use for debate(Any evidence or defense that came up from religion),so that offending can be evaded. 2nd,the contender should prove God is not good(whether he is evil,playing dice or whatsoever) 3rd,1st round will be acceptance I'm hoping for a good debate,this is a good topic. Good luck to us :D
Border Fence

Also thank you bsh1 for putting on this tournament! Conclusion Voter's please notice that in R2 that Con stated "Environmental impact" that the fence had major impacts on the earth, yet she NEVER gave any proof of this "impact" until I mentioned it in R3 when I stated "where is the proof? " Then she decided to give me proof later on in the debate. She only gave quotes and opinions of other people and *how it was effecting the earth* yet, there was no evidence that it *actually* was effecting it until later on in the debate after I had pointed that out. In R4 Con never address's my argument that Americans wont be able to find job's. She never fully rebuts that point, instead he goes on to her own argument. She never addresses my other argument in R3, which was [10] More reasons as to why legal immigration is bad. [10] 1: over population 2: taking jobs away from citizens who are capable and trained 3: terrorists get visas too 4: chain immigration (the ability to bring in unlimited family members) 5: adequate growth cannot be planned for schools, homes, roads, hospitals, because of fluctuation in age groups. 6: at least 40% of visa holders over stay and become illegal. 7: legal immigrants with little or no education also put a heavy burden on welfare services. 8: birthright citizenship. Your child should be a citizen only if at least 1 parents is a US citizen. 9: No plan in place to adequately supervise peoples return to home country when visa expires. 10: No adequate screening in place to check for criminals, terrorist etc. These 10 factors are the most important in this debate. All of these support my claims in the previous arguments to show that immigration is a bad idea. Thus, by ignoring all of this proves to show that it is a bad idea. I have effectively showed that immigration is a bad idea, and by building onto the fence, since it is effective as shown in previous rounds, the Border Fence is infact a good thing. It's worth spending the money on to protect Americans.
Border Fence

This is the next round of the March/April Tournament. I'd like to thank bsh1 for taking the time and effort to organize this tournament it is well appreciated. Resolved- "The United States Federal Government should expand the border fence along its southern border" with Mexico. "The Mexico United States border is an international boundary running from Tijuana, Baja California, and Imperial Beach, California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. The border, separating Mexico and the United States from each other, traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to uninhabitable deserts. It is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world, with approximately 350 million legal crossings being made annually. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is Debate Effective For Solving Issues

Hello, Thank you for accepting my challenge. To reiterate, i will be arguing that debating is ineffective for solving issues addressed in said debates and rarely does so. To explain what I mean, i will provide an example. In a debate where the topic being contested is "Which is better, Red or Green?" The people contesting this topic will be forced to provide for themselves a definition of the word "better" in the context of comparing two colors. Doing this would likely provide an interesting discussion in which those involved would learn about the properties of both colors, pros and cons of both colors, and how both colors have historically impacted humanity, but would it resolve the conflict? Due to the terms of the debate being almost entirely ambiguous and that arguing the topic would be a presentation of opinions it would be virtually impossible to determine whether or not the conflict is in fact resolvable through debating that topic alone. Another example, in the past it was believed that the earth was the center of our solar system, If today we were to debate whether it was the earth or the sun that was the center of our solar system, the debate would just be a presentation of facts, and the side that could provide the most relevant and correct evidence would win that debate. Does this process prove that one side or the other is in fact correct? Say the side that defended the earth being the center of the solar system won said debate. Would this mean that we should all believe this as fact? Or is there a much better method to resolving this conflict such as rigorous scientific investigation? I would say so. Facts are generally indisputable and to dispute them would require vigorous testing and peer studies, not open debate. I do not mean to discredit debate or argument as useless, it has many uses as you have stated. These uses, however, are indirect, through debating a topic, we present information on said topic as well as elaborating on why there is a conflict in the first place. This raises awareness of the conflict and incentivizes us to solve the conflict through more efficient means. This property of argument has been invaluable for shaping our lives today as well as promoting ideals that promote fairness and informed discussion but not in solving the conflict in itself. I hope to continue a pleasant debate and I hope you can identify any flaws in my reasoning or presentation. Thank you