BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework

School and education shouldn't be the only thing growing people pursue in life. Doing extracurricular activities like sports, dance, show choir, etc. sparks interest for the future. Having free time should not be spent on homework, unless a student consents to it freely. Having 8 hours of school a day gives enough time to study content in classes. The time outside of school should be time to immerse students in ulterior interests. Students certainly hold academics high, I mean, they attend school for all of those hours to learn, so isn't that dedication enough? Sports and leisure are important aspects of a high school life, and should not be disregarded for something that already uses up a majority of their day. A statistic: at Red Deer Highschool, the dropout/fail rates were 40% for students. However, when homework was taken away, that percentage went down to 4. Without homework being a vital part of their education, high school students were able to achieve better things.
Homework

Many students do not make the choice, because they do not yet understand the gravity of homework. They see it as busywork, which it is sometimes. I was one of those students who didn't need to do homework, and was highly successful without it so I understand where you are coming from but we have to teach for the average student, and the average student needs help with learning the concepts. And this is not a majority of students that feels this way, it is a very small percentage. Oh the old "students have no time" argument. Lack of time for homework is based on lack of time management. Students put sports and leisure above academics and then when they run out of time they don't do the academic part. I was a varsity wrestler for 2 years (which was 6 days a week min 3-4 hours a day), maintained a reasonable social life, and still found time to do all my work. Cut out unneccesary things like video games and naps and you will be fine.
Homework

The repetition style you're demonstrating in your examples gives a sense of choice. This shows that a student will, outside of their school, study more in order to learn their content better. However, this may not be the case for some students. Many of them are differentiated in their learning, therefore do not need outside work or repetition in order to comprehend. When a teacher distributes homework as required instead of a helpful tool, it limits the amount of learning a student of higher ability might get done compared to those slower at learning content. If a student isn't busy, studying is a good option, however, with highschool students, many crammed schedules arouse and this leaves no time for extra work outside of school. With homework added on, that leaves almost no time in the day and this can negatively affect their performance and participation at school. --Most of this is opinionated based on research, and my sources for my opinion will be posted in the comments.--
Homework

I will be arguing that homework is not only beneficial but imperative for students success. The best way to put something to memory is repetition, and this is one of the things homework does. Let's say student A is in a math class and is having trouble with factoring of quadratics, the best way for the student to learn is to do examples and learn the different ways that they can factor and as they do more and more problems it will become faster and faster until they eventually master it. The other big thing that homework does is that it forces you to think about class outside of class time so the information is not forgotten. Let us use student A for an example again. If he learns the method to factor the quadratic in class and then he spends 24 hours away from class what are the chances he learns it? The homework is reinforcing the information. It also fosters independance and improves study skills (1) source will be in comments as con has limited me to 1000 character and wont fit.
Homework

In my opinion, homework is a waste of time because of its ineffectiveness. Sure, it's good to study for a test every now and then or practice an important presentation you have the next day. I'm talking about the work that teachers give students to study outside of class like reading textbook pages, or completing an online simulator for science; things like that. If teachers really want students to study, they should give them time in class to do so. If they spend too much time rambling about a subject and their students don't have enough time to complete work, complete it the next day. So many teenagers have extracurricular activities that are stressful and time consuming enough. Teachers should evaluate the physical, mental, emotional and social stress homework causes students before assigning hours of it. After extensive research, I am able to conclude that homework doesn't actually help, nor do I, in my opinion think it aids learning in any way.
Food Addiction

my opponent has forfeited, but i will still state my argument. the dictionary.com definition of addiction is as follows: "the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma." i argue that food addiction is not real because when you abstain from eating after you have developed a compulsive habit, you do not face 'severe trauma' as is faced when you do the like during a drug addiction.
Abortion

Your points are really good but i would like to point that due to the advancements in technology, during the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime, it is the perpetrator who should be punished. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life - the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles and the chances of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.
Abortion

I forgot to reply last time, so here's my extra. If a woman were denied the right to have an abortion, many women who are raped would be forced to have the child of their rapist. For nine long months, a woman would be forced to be reminded daily of the day they were raped. Poor women may not be able to provide a suitable environment for children. If a woman is denied an abortion, she is more likely to become unemployed, live below the poverty line, and depend of public welfare. Modern day abortion is very safe. Women actually have a much higher chance of dying from childbirth, than having an abortion. If a woman really wants an abortion, she may even travel to another country, or get an illegal abortion and the procedure may not be as sanitary and safe and she would be putting her life at risk. Abortion allows women to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus is too damaged to even survive. If a fetus was defected and wouldn't even survive the birth, the mother shouldn't need to risk her life to give birth to a child that will never even have a chance of survival.
Abortion

i believe Abortion should be made illegal..... We all know that the foetus has a life...it is feeding on the mother's blood...it kicks, moves, listens to what we say to it... Haven't you noticed one thing...people saying..."I have a good news for all of you..I am going to be a father..." and everyone has a smile on their faces. It is considered to be one of the most happiest moments and news is spread everywhere. People thank God..take care of the mother... and u are saying abortion should be allowed o take place. How can human race be so cruel ? Abortion is nothing but murder of someone who has not yet opened his eyes.
Abortion

Giving birth puts the life of the mother more at risk than the baby. So if a fetus was defected, and wouldn't even be able to survive after birth, why should the mother risk her life to give birth to a baby that won't even survive? And why should the mother become so attached to a baby.. her baby for 9 long months only for the baby to not even have a chance to survive? That is too cruel for the mother. A woman should be allowed have an abortion.
The SAT should not be used by colleges to decide acceptance.

Thank you for accepting. I'm arguing that colleges should not use the SAT at all to factor in their decisions. Currently, colleges look to the SAT second, behind personal essays. Also, please use the SAT and ACT synonymously in this debate. Argument 1: The SAT is not fair. Harvard did a study which found that they used language that would known to white test-takers, rather than non-white test takers (1). CON may say that this is due to their economic difference, but the fact is that birth is a lottery. No one gets to choose where they are born, so it is unfair for one racial group or economic group to have an advantage over another. Argument 2: The SAT doesn't measure a student's actual intelligence level. Many good test takers may do well on the SAT, despite the fact that they might not be that intelligent. On the other hand, neither schools nor the SAT has a category for spatial thinking (2). Thus, we are automatically eliminating people who think spatially from getting into a good college and succeeding. (1): http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2): http://articles.businessinsider.com... Thank you.
President George W. Bush Was Not A Good President!

*Since my opponent did not do a rebuttal, please clarify that you're supposed to do a rebuttal. Contention 1: "HE WAS A GOOD LEADER! " He had 80%-90% for 4 months after 9/11 but as I said in the first sentence of Contention 3, he was ranked 39th out of 43 presidents by 238 presidential scholars! You have failed to see my first contention which I put and please read the contention instead of copying and pasting your whole case in 20 minutes. "We were $5.6 trillion in debt from our previous presidents and George W. Bush advanced our debt. A $236 billion cash on hand became a $412 billion deficit in four years under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress. George Bush and his Republican friends used the existing cash on hand of $236 billion included in the $5.7 trillion projected over the next 8 years into big oil companies and tax cuts for the rich and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While costs of the invasions of Afghanistan piled up, George Bush didn't increase the tax nor make a budget but allowed the next generation to handle our debt. As a result, the government borrowed money to pay for the biggest costs and the Republicans predicted a $61 billion surplus even though they created a budget that added $251 billion to the deficit. During Bush's presidency, jobs only grew 2% and the GDP only grew 2.1%. The worst decade for the stock market which was down 26% from 2000 was in George W. Bush's term. 7 million jobs were lost, 14.5 million people were left unemployed, and 6 million out-of-work adults stopped looking for work because it was too depressing. Manufacturers fell to its lowest level in 26 years. The jobless rate reached a 26 year high. Net job creation has been 0% since December 1999. George W. Bush made our economy worse into what it is today! " Did he seem to handle being president well after 9/11? He seemed to be able to rally the people right after 9/11 but what really counts is the long term run. Look at the numbers again. 78% of all debate. org members are against George W. Bush! As I said before, Afghanistan & Iraq did not need to be invaded to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We have to help ourselves first rather than helping others. Democracy & freedom is great but when your economy becomes 5.7 trillion dollars in debt in 8 years while adding another 5.6 trillion to the debt because of previous presidents, it makes 11.3 trillion dollars in debt while other countries are celebrating freedom and democracy. We need to help ourselves FIRST and then help others because if we don't, we may be one of the worst economically secure country and might even los our freedom! And the debt was made 5.7 trillion dollars more under a Republican Congress from 2000-2006 so you can't blame the Democratic Congress for the "Bush tax cuts" which cost the economy the most. Clinton may have started the recession but George made the recession much worse. Bush got us - 5.7 trillion. Clinton got us - 5.6 trillion!
President George W. Bush Was Not A Good President!

Since your style says no rebuttals yet I will follow these rules. contention one. HE WAS A GOOD LEADER!. He was able to rally a whole nation behind him during 9/11. His approval rating was above 90%, a record. So I think if you can rally most of america behind you, and many of them don't agree with you, then you are a good leader. He responded very well to the ghastly situation.http://www.youtube.com... The video proves my point, he is a good leader. The debt. It was partially because of the war. Afghanistan was a war, against terrorism. So that point is invalid because if your against terrorists, you ought to be pro the afghan war. Iraq is a problem now, but was a good idea then. The CIA told him that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and being a know terrorist supporter Bush believed that he needed to react. The CIA was wrong, but at least he waited for just cause. My second reason: Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States. There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. ... My last reason: Helped the economy. There are many reasons for the debt and the economy, but Bush didn't fully make either of the 2. He saved us in the 2001 resection with those tax cuts. THE ECONOMY INCLINED AFTER! It did decline at the end of his term, but under a democratic congress. And the debt was mostly made in those 2 years because of the bailouts made by liberals. Also the housing market was the main problem that made the recession correct? Well it was because of many things, the banks, and the regulations. These regulations where made under clinton, leading to the ressecion. Also the debt did have a surplus at the end of clintons term. Why? Because taxes rose faster then spending, leading to the 2001 temporary downturn. So most of the blame gets sent to congress and A little to Clinton. CLinton left us on the brink of recession. If you want more details click this link: http://www.issues2000.org...
President George W. Bush Was Not A Good President!

*Lincoln-Douglas Style Means You Have To Make A Case Every Round While Having A Rebuttal! It Also Has 3 Contentions With A Value And Definitions And Maybe Criteria. "Bad leadership during the past years has cast on our Party the shadow of great and grave burdens." Janos Kadar. It is because I agree with Janos Kandar that I agree with the resolution "George W. Bush was not a good president!" To show you what I mean, I have offered these definitions: Good: possessing the necessary skill or talent to do something President: the head of state, or head of state and chief political executive, of a republic My value today is leadership. My definition of leadership is the position or function of a leader. The thing which George W. Bush lacked was true leadership and though he did the best of his ability, he wasn't a good president. Leadership is not everyone's gift and the position of being president of the USA is a very powerful and stressful place to be in. Contention 1: George W. Bush helped make the economy worse. George W. Bush was not a good president because he got us another $5.7 trillion in debt. We were $5.6 trillion in debt from our previous presidents and George W. Bush advanced our debt. A $236 billion cash on hand became a $412 billion deficit in four years under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress. George Bush and his Republican friends used the existing cash on hand of $236 billion included in the $5.7 trillion projected over the next 8 years into big oil companies and tax cuts for the rich and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While costs of the invasions of Afghanistan piled up, George Bush didn't increase the tax nor make a budget but allowed the next generation to handle our debt. As a result, the government borrowed money to pay for the biggest costs and the Republicans predicted a $61 billion surplus even though they created a budget that added $251 billion to the deficit. During Bush's presidency, jobs only grew 2% and the GDP only grew 2.1%. The worst decade for the stock market which was down 26% from 2000 was in George W. Bush's term. 7 million jobs were lost, 14.5 million people were left unemployed, and 6 million out-of-work adults stopped looking for work because it was too depressing. Manufacturers fell to its lowest level in 26 years. The jobless rate reached a 26 year high. Net job creation has been 0% since December 1999. George W. Bush made our economy worse into what it is today! Contention 2: George W. Bush made us the policemen of the world. We fought in so many countries for democracy that we lost lots of money such as Syria and North Korea. Invading the whole countries of Afghanistan & Iraq is idiotic! I will expand if necessary because lack of time. Contention 3: A horrible president was not needed in a bad economic time! George W. Bush was ranked the 39th of the 43 presidents from 238 presidential scholars! George W. Bush as polled horribly and talk of impeachment were made. Many people regretted voting for him! I will expand if necessary because lack of time. In conclusion, George W. Bush was not a good president!
Atoms Are Alive

Myranda has instigated a novel concept to debate in atoms should be considered to be alive and which should provoke an interesting, and hopefully entertaining discussion. However the nature of the opening post is such that I can not help being reminded of a past discussion which focused on a very similar argument. In the history of DDO there have been many great exchanges but none can rival the intensity and passion exhibited by Fatihah in maintaining that intelligence can not come from unintelligence. No matter how great the oppositition, no matter how many members opposed the position, none could shake the neverending responses. Member after member joined the assault; tvellalott, nonentity, GeoLaureate8, but none could shake Fatihah's conviction. In the end even the mighty Kenyon was forced to admit defeat and abandon the discussion for how can anyone defeat such an argument : "Response: [...] the definition of unintelligence is NOT intelligent [...] how do I know that unintelligence can not create intelligence, the answer is because the definition of the very word says so." [1] In her opening post Myranda defends the resolution that "Atoms are live" with the following : "I am sateing that atoms are alive in the sense that nothing biotic can be exist that is coposed of something abiotic." My rebuttal of this argument will be straightforward and use the accepted definitions of life and biotic and component to argue that while an atom is a biotic component it is not alive similar to how a windshield is part of a car it alone can not be labeled as a means of personal transportation or of course a car. [1] http://www.debate.org...
I am Ronald Reagan

** First off, in response to the argument my opponent made in the comments section, it is a well known fact that Ronald W. Reagan DID have Alzheimer's disease. In November 2004, he publicly announced that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease in a hand written letter to the citizens of the United States. That letter can be read here: http://www.americanpresidents.org... , here http://www.cnn.com... , and here http://www.chicagotribune.com... :] ** My opponent failed to provide specific details as to which visitation and funeral he is talking about, so I am going to assume that he is referring to the visitation at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library which took place on June 7, 2004 and the funeral where the body was buried which took place on June 11, 2004. The visitation featured the casket of Ronald Reagan, carcass inside, in the center of the lobby for a total of 2 days. From there the body was flown from Santa Monica, CA to Washington D.C. in which another closed casket service was held. My opponent wants you to believe that he remained alive in this closed casket for 4 whole days before he somehow escaped his coffin undetected sometime between the plane trip and the ride to the cemetery and was buried in the ground amongst friends and family. 0_o Resolution: ** My opponent is not in fact Ronald Reagan. Ronald W. Reagan, the 40th president of the United States died on June 5, 2004 in his home of Alzheimer's disease. My opponent cannot be a person whom is already dead and buried in the ground. I have provided sufficient logical evidence to support my claims and refute my opponent's. A. Ronald W. Reagan had Alzheimer's disease. B. Ronald W. Reagan remained in a closed casket visitation for more than 48 hours before being transported for burial and his funeral. C. If Ronald W. Reagan was alive, ( which he is NOT) he would be a man well in his late 90s and hospitalized because of a serious aggressive degenerative disease (Alzheimer's). Some of the key symptoms of Alzheimer's are memory loss, language breakdown, and confusion. I think it's safe to say he would not be capable of using a computer and conducting a debate. D. My opponent failed to provide proof that he is Ronald Reagan and therefore the vote should go to CON Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com......
I am Ronald Reagan

1) I was in the casket during the visitation but not the actual funeral. 2) It wasn't an incorrect sentence one word was accidentally deleted during spell check, that missing word was Earth. 3) My opponent is making the assertion that i am the only one burdened, but the fact is we are both equally burdened she has to prove I am not Ronald Reagan and I have to prove I am Seeing as my opponent was not only unable to prove I am not Ronald Reagan or that I am dead (which I am not) he argument becomes that less valid. VOTE FOR A FARM!
I am Ronald Reagan

** My opponent states, "Since no one saw my body in the casket no one except for me..." & later stated "I never was buried". Now unless my opponent was not in fact buried in said casket that he claimed to have been in, what business would he have there? What would one be doing in a casket except to be buried? ** My opponent also states, "Again all anyone saw was a casket being condemned to the", which is a incomplete incoherent argument that I cannot be expected to refute. ** My opponent is making a positive assertion that he is Ronald Regan, so the burden of proof lies with him. He is making the mistake of trying to pass the burden on to me. ** This debate isn't about whether or not Ronald Reagan was buried or not. It is about your claim that you are in fact that person. Therefore, my opponent must provide evidence to refute my point that Ronald Reagan is deceased and that he, the instigator, is a 98-year-old male who has been suffering from aggressive Alzheimer disease for the past 15 years and was the 40th president of the United States. Resolution negated.
I am Ronald Reagan

My opponent states that he is Ronald Reagan. Since he has failed to specify which Ronald Reagan he is referring to I will assume he means our nation's 40th president, in which case he is not. ========= Contentions: 1. Ronald Reagan was born February 6, 1911 and died on June 5, 2004 at the age of 93 from Alzheimer's Disease. 2. Ronald Reagan's body was buried at the Ronald W. Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on June 11, 2004. 3. The person my opponent claims to be has long been deceased and has remains which lie buried far underground barring him from being able to sit at a computer and initiate this lovely debate. :) Sources: 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. http://www.whitehouse.gov...