BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Exams Ought to be Abolished from the Education System

R1: China/UKMy opponent agrees that exam stress here is resulting in a lot of problems for students. R2: Structure of ExamsI agree to an extent that the grading scheme needs to be altered to better accommodate student stresses as a result of rigorous intellectual regime. However, where I disagree is the nature of the exam itself, which again forces students to be on the spot, come up with pure information recall as fast as possible, and then explain it as fast as one can on paper. Because of the nature of the exam, even if it was worth less of a % of the whole class mark, it still makes sense to abolish it. The nature of the exam even at 10% still puts undue stress on students when it isn't needed. Unlike an essay where someone can ask for help. R3: Ramifications of AbolitionI disagree with students getting unruly because of exams. Students still get unruly even with the exam coming up. Tis the nature of being an immature student. However, plenty of courses in university do not have exams, and students are not rudely interrupting all the time. Even if a student was rude, the professor or teacher can kick that person out of the class, and continue on with their day. Source: R4: Bell CurvingBecause the marks can be artificially inflated or deflated with an exam to give an even distribution on the marks, it means that the exam results are not fair. The whole point of the exam is nullified as a result. Source: . http://study.com... R5: Cheating, and Other CourseworkI do not deny that students are going to cheat on other assignments as well. I agree, they probably will. However, I contest to what extent students will cheat on an essay versus something like an exam, whereas I think an essay is going to have less cheating than exams. Ergo, essays would still be a better assignment. And given for the reasons posted earlier, I believe exams ought to be abolished. Many thanks to my opponent for the debate, and his understanding of my FF! Cheers guys!
Homeopathy Does Not Work

I'm not aware of any kind of "artificial" wellbeing as you have suggested, only simply, wellbeing. There are many paths up the mountain. Is it really that uncommon for your primary physician to ask, "How have you been feeling?" Or a therapist? Example: I have a broken leg. It's a basic fracture that doesn't require surgury or even need to be reset. A simple protective cast is ordered and I am prescribed and given pain medication, the opiate narcotic pain killer Vicodin. Now with the proper recommended dose the opiate in my blood stream goes straight to work blocking the pain receptors of my nervous system, thus preventing the pain chemicals in my body from being received; the "feeling" of the searing pain from a broken bone is NOT "felt" ... But another curious thing happens, by blocking pain receptors I also receive, as a side effect, feelings and waves of comfort: I am high.. Stoned.. Drugged up.. and it "feels" great! Most would say, "Well, damn, he just broke his leg, of course, let him take the pain killers until the pain subsides.." or "Who cares if he is high or feels good, he has a broken leg.." or "I'm sure breaking a leg is stressful, hopefully the pain meds give him some relief and comfort.." Now lets notice and explore a couple of ideas here in the example I have given: 1) The narcotic does nothing to actually repair the broken bone in my leg! The narcotic only merely "tricks" my body that I'm not in pain. 2) Because the drug makes me high, I feel good (despite my broken leg) yet the source (the opiate) is technically synthetic and artificial; least we say superficial as well.. YET, I STILL FEEL GOOD (which is the point). So now let's distinguish this and contrast this from your views. Sure, the Vicodin is acting directly with the chemistry of my body. But it produces feelings of wellbeing without addressing or curing and mending my broken leg. We could then get very medically and scientifically detailed about how the drug's material chemistry "works". But again, it still doesn't repair and mend the broken bone in my leg, yet it's a justified therapy given to one who has a broken leg. Further, we know of the healing odds of placebos. Medical therapies do not even have to have a direct chemical influence on the body to have a positive outcome, and produce wellbeing. The brain and mind of the body merely need to believe that it does, and a seemingly unscientific event occurs, the body follows and begins to heal itself. Major surgeries have been preformed without any chemical sedatives or anesthetics using only suggestive hypnosis! I don't know how useful it is to equate alternative medical therapies to Jesus, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc. I think that it might be a mistake to qualify all of these subjects equally in the same way. Your conclusion seems to be that homeopathic alternative therapies must meet certain scientific requirements and standards first before being taken seriously, otherwise they cannot possibly "work". I have shown that to be false. Perhaps the end result (how people feel) should be standard, as it is in all areas of medicine.
Homeopathy Does Not Work

Science has learned not to trust anecdotal evidence. As much for homeopathy as for UFO, Bigfoot, Jesus, and more. We cannot base medicine on opinion. One might feel better for any number of reasons, but the basic science behind homeopathy- the dilution elements, etc...- is not science and therefore does not work as it claims. If I hand over a bottle of water and say that it will cure your headache, and your headache goes away because you think it will, it still does not count. Headaches go away, that's what they do. And homeopathy/placebo are only ever claimed in these anecdotes to cure stomach ache, or rash or similar such minor conditions. The science still doesn't work, although any number of things can contribute to one's psyche. The basic idea behind homeopathy, and its claims of curing disease using a diluted solution of what CAUSES the disease is nonsense and does not work. I might say aliens exist and cure people of headaches and I can prove this because I claimed to have seen an alien, and then my headache was gone. It doesn't therefore follow that aliens exist, just as claims to feeling better (Whether true or false) cannot be admitted as evidence in determining if homeopathy works. Again thank you for being a brilliant opponent.
Homeopathy Does Not Work

Agreed. Well said. I too do not like any medical or business professionals who take advantage. But for the sake of the debate and keeping it lively, the title of the challenge and debate is, "Homeopathy Does Not Work," and the supporting idea is that all of its attributes also do not work. So if we have patients reporting that they feel better (I can cite sources of these case studies if you wish), and that their overall wellbeing has improved, then perhaps this kind of alternative therapy has done what medicine is intended to do. In other words, it does in fact "work" ... Contrary to the challenge as the table was set for this debate. Placebo pills work too in medicine in probably the exact same way. The reason or the way in which they work is interesting because we shouldn't expect them to. It is facinating when you stop and think about it. Really brings to light the possibility of the Mind, psychological attitude and thoughts creating and controling physiological effects, even reversing the ill effects of diseases. Now had you worded the challenge of the debate slightly differently like, "Homeopathic Medicine is Merely a Placebo," or, "Homeopathic Medicine has No Direct Chemical Influence on Physiology," then you would get little debate from me. You can think of the procedure as an expensive, intense psychological sessions with use of alternative medicine to produce improved wellbeing, in which case, it does "work".
Homeopathy Does Not Work

Where are the morons! ? But I think medicine and science shouldn't take seriously these frauds and swindlers who sell water and market it as a cure all or whatever they may claim that it cures. Feeling better is all fine and dandy but these companies/people/quacks lie and mislead the public and need to be actively punished like any other business that would do so. These claims must be taken seriously, because they are scientific claims- false scientific claims. They cannot market water as a drug and sell it for a large price. Homeopathy does not work, though just thinking something works might make people feel better or even produce some type of artificial well being, it is not a drug and does not cure anything. I could just as easily sell sand and say that by putting this sand in your toilet, you will feel better. You might in fact feel better, but the claim is no less garbage and not proof that the sand has an effect as anything but 'delusional'.
Homeopathy Does Not Work

I actually agree with you! There is something about Homeopathy (especially when one looks at the actual evidence for how it's "supposed to work") that is off putting scientifically. Scientifically, how could it possibly work? However, philosophically and psychologically, there is room to discuss the Placebo Effect through Homeopathic therapies and, subsequently, the facts of this practice having real Utility as there are absolutely scientifically measurable results. It becomes a kind of "psychosomatic rehabilitation" and results in well-being have been achieved. A case could also be made Homeopathic therapies aid in the prevention and use of other possibly "worse" kinds of drugs, with volatile side-effects, typically used in more orthodox medical practices. If you believe the goal of medicine is to improve health and over all well-being, then you will also have to agree Homeopathic alternative medicine doesn't have to be True, but rather, merely useful and beneficial. If it makes folks feel better I believe that is the point of medicine to a large extent.
South Korea should possess nuclear weapons

First, there is a right to self defense, especially in the situation when South Korea is receiving severe imminent threat. The Korean war has still not ended. Although the last fight had occurred 60 years ago, there was no treaty or declaration confirming the end of the war, which proves that the war had not ended, but instead, we"re still on a break right now. However, recently, they had declared a thermonuclear war. That means a war using nuclear weapons. No country has ever gotten a thermonuclear war threat. they had gotten war threats in the past, of course, but never a thermonuclear war. If this is not a threat, I demand my opponent to exactly clarify, "What really is a threat?" Besides, North Korea has tested their nuclear weapons three times already: their first one in October 2006, the second one on May 2009, and the last one this year, 2013, on February. This proves that even from nearly 7 years ago, North Korea kept on developing and testing their nuclear weapons. Although we, South Korea, has and had the military for a very long time, everyone knows that military is nothing when compared to nuclear weapons. It's kind of like gun versus strength. When you are fighting with someone, and you own a gun, how strong your opponent is doesn"t matter because one shoot can kill him. It"s the same with North and South Korea. South Korea may be strong because of the military. However, because North Korea owns nuclear weapons, it doesn"t matter that we have the military. Not only that, they had cancelled to abide by the Armistice Treaty, which means that North Korea may engage in aggression acts even today! Attacks may happen today. It can be tomorrow. It can be next week. Who knows? And because North Korea is being an imminent threat to this country, I believe that South Korea definitely should have a right to self defense by developing nuclear weapons. Another reason why we should practice our right to self defense is because we have the justification to withdraw from the NPT. South Korea has signed a treaty called Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is a treaty that that makes countries promise not to make nuclear weapons. However, the treaty Article 10 specifically says that countries are allowed to withdraw if they have a very urgent reason that severely threatens the utmost interest of the nation. This means that even the international treaty is acknowledging the importance of national sovereignty, thus the right to self-defense! And as I have already mentioned, North Korea is an imminent threat to South Korea by declaring to wage a thermonuclear war. Has any country around the world received such a threat before? If this is not a legitimate reason to withdraw from NPT, I demand my opponent to think of a scenario that is more urgent than this. We believe that this is justifiable as a reason for South Korea to withdraw from NPT.
South Korea should possess nuclear weapons

I would like to define this motion and state the status quo in the first round. First, I would like to define possess as in developing and owning something (in this case, nuclear weapons) for one's own country. Nuclear weapons are powerful weapons that derive their force from nuclear reactions. As a South Korean, I would like to be talking about this motion in South Korea's perspective. North and South Korea are technically still in a war, but what"s worse, North Korea has been developing deadly nuclear weapons for decades. And guess what? South Korea has been prevented from developing our own nuclear weapons for 60 years, andI believe that we need to put a stop to this, once and for all. South Korea should be able to take care of their own citizens. And I believe that South Korea needs to solve this issue with the North, starting from today.
South Korea should possess nuclear weapons

US Military ExpenditureYour first argument declares that the US may not be there to protect South Korea because we may not have similar interests. To advocate for that idea, you state that America is incapable of 'doing our job' because we have gone through an economic recession. To counter this, it should be known that the United States has spent about 650 billion dollars in 2012 [1]. Second to the United States was China which had spent 150 million that year [2]. I can't find where my opponent got the 500 billion dollar cut on the US military expenditure from (which is why sources are nice), but regardless, the idea that the US would betray the protection of a country threatened by North Korea, the unstable country who has withdrawn from the NPT and has threatened the United States? That's an unrealistic stretch.Nuclear UmbrellaThe fact that the United States is protecting many countries does not change the nuclear umbrella argument. In fact, it seems as if my opponent as completely avoided the fact that the United States has any potential nuclear threat from North Korea nullified along with most of the points made in the unforeseen consequences argument covering with "countries will understand South Korea breaking an agreement to not manufacture weapons of mass destruction to protect themselves from an unrealistic threat." Whether the US was protecting 25 or 250 countries, the fact remains that there is a multitude of American ships armed with missile defense systems, ballistic missile defense batteries, and the USFK on the ground which is plenty of physical and political 'nuclear deterrence [3].'A Sovereign South KoreaSovereignty of any country is important, however South Korea has the sovereignty to declare themselves a part of the NPT which they have. It was a decision made by the South Korean government to ratify the NPT and void their ability to develop nuclear weapons along with the majority of other countries to protect the future from the dangers of nuclear weapons. It may not be the responsibility of the US to protect South Korea, but the US would take action against nuclear threats as would most other superpowers.North Korea could say they developed nuclear missiles for self defense against the United States and North Korea, but that doesn't mean that the world can turn a blind eye to the fact that nuclear missiles should not be manufactured. A country signing into a treaty that prevents nuclear missiles does not prevent said country from defending it's citizens.ConclusionI hope it is clear to my opponent and to the audience that the development of nuclear weapons by South Korea is a goal that would do more harm than good for the country per the 'unforeseen consequences' argument and that the United States will not stand by while a country launches nuclear missiles per the 'nuclear umbrella' argument. Thank you Pro for this debate and bringing up a topic that needed to be discussed.Sources[1] http://www.gpo.gov...[2] http://books.sipri.org...[3] http://www.reuters.com...
South Korea should possess nuclear weapons

Not a SolutionMy first contention would be to establish that South Korea having nuclear weapons is not a solution. Since the Korean War came to an armistice in 1953, there have been threats to South Korea and the armistice has been ended 6 times in the past [1]. The probability of an attack is unlikely and unpredictable, and permitting countries to have nuclear missiles is irrational. Two wrongs don't make a right, and in the situation that North Korea does launch an attack, the United States are already prepared as a nuclear umbrella to intercept North Korean attacks [2].United States Nuclear UmbrellaTo add on to the nuclear umbrella, the constant surveillance around the Korean Peninsula by United States proves that North Korea's threats are completely unrealistic. The Pentagon ordered a THADD ballistic missile defense battery to be deployed at Guam. The USS Decantur, USS John S. McCain, and the USS Fitzgerald which are all equipped with missile defense systems have all been deployed in the Western Pacific [3] in retaliation to North Korea's nuclear threats.Unforeseen ConsequencesTo break away from the NPT would prove harmful to South Korea in that South Korea would join North Korea as the only countries to withdraw from the NPT. South Korea also wouldn't be able to draw upon the Nuclear Suppliers Group which provides much of the fuel to power nuclear plants. Developing nuclear missiles would end South Korea's goals to become a nuclear exporter which it is clear South Korea has worked so hard on accomplishing. Lastly, it would find itself in violation of it's civilian nuclear agreement with the United States. [4] ConclusionIt should be clear that adding new nuclear weapons to any country is anything but beneficial and South Korea. Facing potential bilateral or multilateral economic sanctions, voiding of the goal to become a nuclear exporter, and an end to it's civilian nuclear agreement with the United States, it is clear to see why it is unrealistic for South Korea to possess nuclear weapons.Sources[1] http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr...[2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.reuters.com... [4] http://blog.keia.org...
Evolution is the truth - Religion is not

Ok. Faith is not religion. I have faith in atheism and evolution and believe in them. That is not what we are debating here today. You say that creationism is driven by faith, yet evolution is driven by fact. We have SCIENTIFICALLY proven that evolution has occurred yet some people do not accept to believe it. Creationism is, even by you, stated to be help up by faith. Evolution is held up by fact.
Evolution is the truth - Religion is not

I can easily drive this to another topic but ey, what the heck. Im going on a limb here by stating something that can be either good or bad. Faith. People believe in creationism because of faith. something that can anchor them and give them hope. Faith is intangible and proof-less , yes but, you cannot argue that faith is wrong. Faith is that one last pillar in which creationism stand on.
Evolution is the truth - Religion is not

Please can you explain to me how creationism be true? Take my points from another debate: - We derived from LUCA (last universal common ancestor) and have evolved since then. - We have evolved from Neanderthals which had limited vocal capacity and we've evolved so we can now speak. - We have disproved the theory of Adam and Eve being able to speak with this. - Creationism is flawed as a whole. How can it go hand to hand with evolution when it clearly states that Adam & Eve and the world being made by God in 7 days. The PROOF of evolution just totally undermines the whole theory of creationism. They are total opposites. Definition to support this: creationism noun 1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Evolution is the truth - Religion is not

i clearly see your point. You stated that Genesis never happened and creation is false. To rebut , i want to state , why arrive to the conclusion that most of what the Bible stated is false? You clearly believe in Evolution and I believe in creationism. Well why should these two beliefs cannot go hand in hand? And yes, I am borrowing context from a commentator but it is a fair point because you just arrive at a conclusion that creationism is false.
Evolution is the truth - Religion is not

Ok to start. I believe that, although there's hard proof that Jesus and the Saints existed, it does not mean that they had any link to God. I believe that Evolution is the most accurate thing proposed. I do not doubt that Religion is in our modern day society and interlinked with every aspect of our world - politics, science etc. - but that was not my point. I said that religion is not correct and truthful. And no I am not 'just against religion'. I just believe that a huge aspect of the Bible and religion is not correct and truthful. We PROVED that creationism in Genesis is false and UNTRUTHFUL so why should we believe something that has parts of it to proved wrong. Would you listen to the President of the USA if in part of his speech he said that he would sponsor NASA to get to Jupiter in the next year. No you wouldn't so then you should start questioning the legitimacy of the rest of his speech. Rebuttal stated.
Evolution is the truth - Religion is not

Though there is a hard proof of Evolution, you cant possibly think that Religion is not true. In technicality, and for my ease, I'd use the example of Catholicism. There are many historical proof that the events that happened in the Bible was true. I don't really wanna look like a hard-core catholic , all I want to argue is this : Religion is real. Religion provided culture to the world, it also inspired law. But most importantly, religion is a huge influence in modern societies's moral framework. You stated that Evolution is real, yes I agree, but you did not state the nature of your statement. What i mean by that is that, there can be many outlets of the topic. Religion is not true. But in what format? Do you not believe the miracles that are stated in the Bible? Are you against Creationism? Or are you just against religion in general? If you are argument is based on the latter, then i'm sorry, but you are flawed ( in my opinion ). Because there are proof that Jesus Christ did exist, the Saints, Martyrs , they exist, their remains are scattered all over the world. argument stated