BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional

I apologize for forgetting that I had 24 hours to post a response rather than the 72 I'm used to! Because I accidentally forfeited and my opponent posted no new arguments, I will give a recap of this debate rather than a rebuttal. PRO argued in her first round that homework ought to banned and/or made optional and/or limited. As CON, I claimed that homework was good for a) the student b) the teacher and c) our nation as a whole and provided sources to back up these claims. Next, PRO claimed that the cons of homework outweigh the pros. She spoke of the added stress, extra workload for teachers, and misguided approaches to solving our nation's problems.
Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional

Thank you for your welcome, and also your clarification, but I do know what utilitarianism and active & passive mean. While homework does have its benefits, which you mentioned, such as improving student's grades, scores, and futures, the cons of homework far outweigh them. Homework can clarify the subject, but if the concepts have not been learned once class is over, the homework becomes pointless. School is, and kids lives in general are, already immensely stressful without homework. Clear relationships between student's stress and ailments (physical and mental) have been found . I am again going to emphasise that homework should be limited. Though you make an excellent point about time restrictions, many teachers assign time-consuming homework that no one could complete quickly, no matter how intelligent they are or how well they understand the concept. If homework were to be limited to a few nights a week, this would open up more time for kids to be kids. I cannot speak for everyone when I say this, but at my school, we have at least four hours of homework total. Per night. Add in school, extracurriculars, meals, and sleep, and that leaves little to no time for freetime. No matter how well you manage your time, there will always be something that does not fit. If you were to try to squeeze in some freetime, you would most likely end up giving up some sleep, which would impair your performance at school the next day. As most kids enjoy having freetime, this is often the case. Therefore, I must say that, though homework is intended for a good cause (that is, improving ability), the ideals commonly get lost in the stress that balancing the different aspects of your life, and homework becomes more of a burden than a helper. You mentioned that homework benefits teachers, but I would have to differ. Homework does show teachers whether the material is clear or not, but it creates extra work for them (as well as the students). Now they not only have mountains of classwork, tests, and projects to grade, they have to grade daily homework as well. This is more evidence why even just limiting the amounts of homework would be beneficial. As for benefiting the nation, you yourself mentioned that the issue we have does not lie within homework, but rather within emphasis on athleticism. In that way, homework is unrelated, and not the fix for the issue: stronger emphasis on education through something such as more personalised learning is.
School Uniforms

I have grown up in a strictly uniformed system of schooling. I hate it, with a passion, and would like to state why.But before I begin my debate I want to counter a potential point often raised by pro on the matter.Pro school uniform advocates often argue that it reduces inequality because the rich and poor wear the same clothing, thus reducing, if not obliterating, bullying over economic status in society. However, to force a minimum wage family to buy a fairly expensive school uniform (as most are made of top-notch material, especially in sports kit) is for more cruel than allowing the child to buy attractive clothing of a less-well-known-branded clothing. For example, they would be allowed to wear a hand-me-down t-shirt which probably is still in tact and ready to use. In winter they would wear a knitted jumper as opposed to the expensive factory-produced school jumper which their minimum wage family have to give up food to afford. If you want to begin discussing economic inequality, first consider which system (uniform of non-uniform) allows poor families and children the best opportunities. Besides, there are some attractive cheap clothing simply cheap because the brand is not well known, the child could happily wear this.I shall now state the three contentions which I shall stand by in my opposition to school uniform.Firstly, a child is a being hampered creatively. Each child is an individual who should be able to wear shat they like to express themselves.Secondly, uniform teaches people to expect all to be the same and reject weirdness, a very bad attitude in life.Thirdly, uniform is forcing people to buy from one source often creating a monopoly. This means they can price the uniform as they wish and you will have to buy it. This is economically a poor method of going about business.
School Uniforms

Through our academic learning period, we have many distractions we must cope with, while going through the education process. These distractions are wide-ranging, but most string from the same topic, popularity. Through the process of making the school uniform universal, you could take away the hierarchy that occurs. Through making the clothing universal everyone appears to be equal and can concentrate on school work, the task they are there for. However, the dress code would be something comfortable and non distracting. This could let students concentrate on their education. As a professor of mine has always said, "Your scholar years are the ones to try your hardest. How you spend this time will decide your fate in society." Also, to address the issue of a universal dress code- there are many more ways to express individuality, other than clothing. For example, individuality can be achieved through extra-curricular programs in which you can communicate your mindset. Overall, a school uniform dress code would lead to a better academic community.
Theseus' Ship Changes and Yet Remains Theseus' Ship

I extend all my arguments.However I should point out a rather embarrassing mistake I made. In my opening statement I attempted to translate my opponents definition of a ship into firs order logic. In doing so I did not produce a definition, but a definite description.Correctly a definition of a ship, based on my opponent's, would look like this:Ax(Tx IFF Wx & Kx & Mx & Sx)For all x, x is a ship if and only if x is made of wooden planks & x has a keel & x has a masthead & x has a sail.
Young children should not be forced into religion

For the idea of Separation of Church and state, the government has no right, although it somewhat does anyways, to force laws or decisions based solely on someone's faith, regardless what faith they may be. Government should have no part in our faith and saying what we can and cannot worship, that is an incredible violation of out freedom. As parents we have the right to choose if we would want to raise our kids to follow our faith or let them find their own faith. The idea that the government should have any choice in the matter is not only a violation of freedom but a violation of privacy! Would parents who simply want have Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Satanic, Wicca, Hindu, or Scientologist kids have their kids taken away because they have faith in their own faith and want to spread it to their kids? That is an absolutely ridiculous idea, religion doesn't harm children. I'm not saying there aren't some people who can take faith too far and hurt people out of their own beliefs, which isn't a good thing at all, or that some parents force it down their kids throat when the kid isn't interested which can cause family conflict, but for the most part families don't crumble to the ground because they raise, or at times try to raise, their kids a certain faith. Parents should not only have the right to raise their children into their faith. Sure, the kids may not want to be that faith, but they can make their own decisions as well, they aren't slaves. Keep the government out of faith, especially when it comes to in your homes.
The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world.

Still, by being backed by something, as Mr. Machiavelli has shown, means that one is actually weak, so they can't be one of the best fighting forces in the world. If you don't condone or preach the necessity of violence, then why would you think that it matters if the Marines are good or not at war-making? This resolution is false, because it promotes violence through the world, which certainly is a bad thing. Who cares about other countries militaries? I'm talking about the Marines, and it seems like you had been up to this point as well. Okay so you're saying that because dictators use violence to get things done, then we should do it too? Thats what it sounds like. The United States seems to have achieved the "constant state of war" One war or another, the United States has been fighting in some form of military conflict, big or small, for the past 10 years. People promoting the Marines as one of the best certainly do not help matters, with their fanatic jingoism that belittles other countries and makes the United States less respectable. The Commander in Chief does NOT need Congressional authorization to end the military into an area and engage whatever he deems as hostiles. The war powers Act of 1973 made this possible. Since the 1980's the United States has had a thing for drawing the ire of those in the middle east, with our unwavering and unquestioning support for Israel and interference with their countries with the sole objective of making a profit. This makes people not like us, and the invasion of Iraq made things exponentially worse. You use two videos to defend our invasion of Iraq. The first one is a montage relating to 9/11, which includes pictures from a forest fire that likely didn't occur in lower Manhattan (at 1:44. ) This despite the fact that not a single 9/11 terrorist was from Iraq, and that Saddam did not have any connections to Al Queda. Your other video is of a solider who fought vailantly in Iraq. Unfortunately, he is not the arbiter of everything, andI would not use him as a reliable source any farther than I can throw him. What one (or even x number) of veterans say about the iraq war doesn't mean one thing or another. I will point you to . http://ivaw.org..., Iraq Veterans Aganst the War. Clearly there is belief on both sides from people that have experienced far more than my opponent or myself. The Iraq war was unjustified because we did not have a reasonable cause for war. Certainly if it was becuase Saddam was a dictator, then we would have gone in there 20 years ago, and would likely have taken out most of the middle eastern and african countries' leaders. We also didn't find any WMDs, which was our stated reason for going in. Iraq was a blunder of epic proportions, and pro-military fanaticism which preaches the ideas that we can do anything, because we're Americans helped us get into this mess. I have answered your resolution, I find it incorrect because it promotes warmongering, as I have shown. Also, you contradicted yourself by saying that the Marines' support is what makes it great.
The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world.

I apologize for my wording. I should have said "they are a smart group of men and women who are backed by one of, if not the, most powerful nations in the world, are aided by technology superior to that of our enemies and have one of the best combat records in the world." When I say backed, I mean funded and sponsored, if you will, by said nation. Next- the New York Yankees are hardly a fighting unit comparable to the US Marine Corp. PS- It's because the Yankees got rid of Joe Torre that they stink this year (I support the Red Sox so it doesn't matter anyway). I do not condone or preach of the necessity of violence in the world, but I do realize why being able to keep the peace with an iron grip is important. I, like Ronald Regan did and many other conservatives do, realize this without being "war-hawks". I would like to point out to my opponent that I said "the Marines are ONE of the best fighting forces in the world." Not the best. If you start to say the Marines (CAPITAL 'M') are not great because you dislike the US, you are being very annoying. The militaries of all countries do not always protect their subjects!!! How could you suggest such a thing? Many governments condone and support the use of violence to get things done (dictatorships generally). You must not have a very sharp mind for history. I do not speak of the "pointlessness of peace"- you do. How is it possible for one to be in a constant state of war? We do not go into countries for "fun" as you say. There will always be a reason (however much you don't like it) because the Commander in Chief needs the approval of congress to go to war. We do an excellent job of keeping the peace and not "making more people hate us". You can never please everyone so yeah, I guess we will make some people hate us. I ask my opponent to provide foundations to the claim that "Iraq was a terrible idea, and you're saying that they spearheaded it. Yeah." In what way was going into Iraq a terrible idea? (See videos) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... War is always a last resort and you still haven't answered my resolution. "proving that the marines aren't one of the best." How?
The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world.

I'll start with rebutting my opponent, then move on to what I have to say. 1." is one of the best fighting force in the world is because they are a smart group of men and women..." I know plenty of groups of smart men and women, this certainly doesn't make them amazing at war-making. 2. "hey are backed by one of...the most powerful nations in the world..." You just contradicted your own resolution. As 16th century Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli explains in chapter 13 of the Prince, "A wise prince...has always avoided...arms[of those that are called to come to help and defend him] and turned to his own." Basically this means that if you need someone else to back you up, then you aren't really all that strong. Thats what you just said about the Marines. 3. " best combat records in the world." So did the New York Yankees, but now they can't even make the playoffs. Things change. My opponent then talks about the necessity of violence in the world, and how the Marines are able to protect our nation. Remember, the ability for the marines to fight for us does not make them better or worse in terms of being one of the best fighting forces in the world. The militaries of all countries do this for their subjects, however not all of them are great. Next he speaks of the pointlessness of peace. Now surely one always has to be careful while in peacetime, but the focus should always be to maintain the peace, and not to be going into other countries just for fun, making more people hate us, which threatens our own stability even more. Again, the necessity of the Marines does not make them better or worse. And this is the argument that I wish to have, as the resolution needed someone to go against it, and I am going against it, saying that it promotes unnecessary violence and war-making. Your talk of the Marines' greatness only increases the validity of my point, which is that this resolution promotes war-making, instead of diplomacy. Iraq was a terrible idea, and you're saying that they spearheaded it. Yeah. My opponent confuses peace and diplomacy with being a wuss. I don't advocate that, but I do advocate trying so solve international issues with things other than militaries. My 2 points. 1. Resolution supports military adventurism instead of peace and diplomacy with war as a distant last resort. 2. Opponent refuted himself in his R2, proving that the marines aren't one of the best.
The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world.

I'm sorry. I should have elaborated. The reason I think that the US Marine Corps is one of the best fighting force in the world is because they are a smart group of men and women, they are backed by one of, if not the, most powerful nations in the world, are aided by technology superior to that of our enemies and have one of the best combat records in the world. Look my friend- Unfortunately, there will always be violence in the world. Even if we as citizens do not or cannot learn to fight, we need people who can, and will, to protect the ideals of our wonderful nation (as well as the people in it). We have to realize this- even if we don't want to. So- let us just accept this fact and move on. Through force anything is not possible. However, it is better to "walk softly and carry a big stick" then to hold up your arms and say something to the affect of "We are peaceful! Come join us in destroying all the weapons in the world!" because then we are basically saying "You- you don't like us do you? Come attack us, we're defenseless!" Anyway- this is not the argument and if this is the arguement you want to have then fine. We'll set up a different debate. Just contact me. Moving on- The US Marine Corps is an extremely intelligent group of people.Theyhave a history of making battle changing decisions in the face of the enemy on the fly and have a record as one of the most feared mlitary groups in the world. They spearheaded many (if not all or most) of the invasions in the Pacific in WWII and also spearheaded both invasions of Iraq. More to come later-
The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world.

"The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world." I negate this resolution, as I feel this resolution represents inappropriate feeling that some people hold which is that "through force, anything is possible." This is simply untrue, and is an ineffective means to ensuring global (or national) prosperity and peace. So basically, it doesn't matter what the Marines are, but this resolution is false because it promotes military adventurism and seeking conflict instead of diplomacy to solve the worlds problems. More to come..
Eating your own hair for protine perposes

Gross: "objectionable, offensive, or disgusting," (1) Eating hair is disgusting to me. Hence, it is disgusting. Want a more objective source? Take A Girl With a Dream's statement that, "(E)ating hair is gross," (2) Clearly eating hair is gross. Hence, don't do it. Plus it could make a hairball and kill you. (1) dictionary.com (2) answers.yahoo.com/questions/index?qid=20080924141342AAHwdbn
God Exists

Now, Pro failed to actually provide the definition as referred to in R1. I begged the question "What is a god", asking for the primary traits, but only the secondary traits were given (Creator of the universe). Conduct to me. In anticipation for Pro's arguments for god, I will refute two of the common arguments: the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Intelligent Design. Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The Universe began to exist C1: The universe has a cause. C2: That cause is a god. Rebuttal: P1 isn't necessarily true. It hasn't been observed or remarked that all existence has a cause. For example, Virtual Particles seem to pop into existence for a limited time without any cause. I will concede P2. Because P1 may not be true, we cannot accept C1, and therefore, C2. The KCA has been disproven. I allow my opponent to argue for it. Intelligent Design (ID) This idea is well-known. Our bodies are perfect, because a great intelligence designed it. I will refute that claim. Rebuttal: There is an easy example that comes to mind to disprove ID, the appendix. In the body of the modern human, the appendix is useless and even serve as a health rish ocasionally. Should ID be true, the apoendix could easily be gone upon birth of all new humans, but that clearly isn't the case. If you are wondering why evolution didn't take care of it, it is because evolution doesn't have huge standards, but it its standards are "good enough". If what evolution has caused is good enough to live for a while, then it's fine for evolution. The apoendix will only occasionally be a health risk, so evolution didn't bother to remove it. Two common aguments refuted. I welcome my opponent to refute my rbuttals or present his arguments, but BoP is still on him to prove god.
God Exists

Hello. This is a challenge issued to BigSky about whether a god exists or not. -=Debate Parameters=- Pro: BigSky Con: Luggs 4 Rounds Voting: 7 Days Arguments: 72 Hours Character Limit: 8,000 Characters All votes must have a comment. -=Debate Rules - Violation of any will result in a loss of Conduct=- The Bible will not be accepted as evidence unless proven to be true. Cite Sources. R1 is acceptance, so arguments begin in R2, and only rebuttals and closing in R4. No semantics. Use evidence (information that supports your position) and proof (conclusive evidence). Pro must supply the definition as mentioned below for god in R2. If done later, Conduct penalty is still applied. -=Definitions=- God: shall be defined by my opponent for the purpose of the debate. Must include his primary attributes (what is god?) and secondary attributes (what can/what did it do?). -=Roles for Pro and Con=- Burden if proof (now to be known as BoP) is my opponent, Pro, to prove god, and mine, Con, to refute his arguments. I will be defending the agnostic atheist position (I do not believe in god, but I do not claim my belief to be absolute truth). Pro will be attempting to defend theism (belief that god exists).
Violent video games lead to violent behaivior

There are two problems with studies on this subject. The first is that they assume correlation implies causation. Maybe people become more aggressive from playing violent video games. Maybe violent video games are more enjoyable to more aggressive people. Or maybe there is a third factor that causes both. The second problem is that they only measure in short-term lengths. It's one thing to have volunteers play Call of Duty and then measure their activity. It's another thing to say that these games have a long-term, psychological effect on the actions of those people who play them. To quote the study Violent Video Games and Real-World Violence: Rhetoric Versus Data, "finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks." If anything, these games provide catharsis. One of the major theories for the evolutionary need for imagination is catharsis. If an individual has pent up anger, fictional acts of aggression have proved to relieve said anger. How much more so could these games release the anger? Thanks, its time for your argument.
Violent video games lead to violent behaivior

Violent video games don't lead to violent behaivior any more than playing Candy Crush leads to candy addictions. If anything, they are cathartic. Studies on this topic are plagued by the fact that correlation does not imply causation. If a murderer plays violent video games, isn't it more logical to say that as someone who kills in real life would kill in a game than to say that the game led him/her to the act of killing?
Violent video games lead to violent behaivior

Studies have shown that when children are introduced to violence of any form the become aggressive, even if the aggression is short-term, it affects the child's personality, and can cause him or her to show that same type of aggression in real life situations. One report states, "One of the most severe effects of violent video games on children is that the games are addictive and they tend to keep children engaged for a longer period. Many parents must have observed that their child becomes restless if he/ she does not play the specific game for the specific time every day. This can affect the child's mental stability and make him dependent on the game." Clearly the evidence shows that violence from video games can have devastating effects.