BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework is necessary

You are absolutely right. A child's childhood should not be ripped away from them all over school. I would never, ever put my own child through that. As someone who wants to become a teacher, my eyes have been opened. While the IDEA of homework is something I think is needed, the idea of losing a childhood is needed. I wish there was an alternative solution to homework, and I would rather have no solution than no childhood. After a great debate and a great learning experience from my opponent, I am simply torn. I just want what's best for the educational/professional career of our students
Homework is necessary

OK, first let me say, I had lots of trouble in school too. I have ADHD and many other problems, so school was very hard. I would come home with about five minutes worth of homework and it would take me an hour. Or come home with an hours worth of homework and take 5 hours. I spent all my time home doing homework. In the afternoons I spent all afternoon doing homework, and was up late trying to finish. On the weekends I was doing projects or make up work. I couldn't play any sports, I didn't go anywhere on weekdays, couldn't play outside. I didn't get to go to church on some Sundays because I had too much work. I woke up, got ready, went to school for seven hours, then did home work all afternoon and went to bed. The only time I could do anything fun was when I lied to my parents and just didn't do the work. At that point I wasn't even learning anything. I just struggled to get work done and then forget about it and struggle with the next task. I always loved computers I just naturally could figure out how to fix things or find out how to do things on computers. That is what I wanted to do as a career. But I couldn't take time to play around with a computer or take some online course that taught me how to script. Because I had work. Why was this homework from school more important than learning about something I was interested in? Why was it more important for me to spend hours on language arts, or math, or social studies, than to learn how to program so I could do it for a living? Why was doing hours of homework worth not being a child? Not playing outside or hanging out with friends. We worry so much about educating our kids so they can have good careers, we smother them with so much work they don't get time to innovate and explore, and learn other things on their own that will help them in life. Schools could teach so much better in the seven hours they teach kids if we fixed the screwed up education system we have. But I will save that argument for a different debate. I strongly disagreed when you said, "Lots of parents think that teachers know better for the children then they do themselves, and you know what, they do." Parents see their kids true selves more than teachers do. And parents bring up and raise their kids to be how they are. Also, you are saying teachers push kids to do their best but parents just say its too hard. So that is why teachers teach what they need at school instead of sending work home.
Homework is necessary

1. No, students do not need to do homework. Or maybe it fits better to say they shouldn't. They need to train their brain on the subject? Why not do this in the seven hours they are actually in school? Yes, its good to give them a little bit of review every now and then to make sure they are learning, but that is simply not what teachers normally do. 2.Not all students learn by independent work. Some kids need to be walked through problems many different times, and have trouble learning otherwise. But if they are given independent work before they may fully understand the subject, they are in a bad position. If they don't understand a subject and cant do the work, and therefore don't do it, they most often get in trouble or are given bad grades. If they don't understand the subject, but try to at least do the work, they most likely will not do good on that assignment. Depending on the teacher, a student may be punished for doing bad on an assignment. 3. Believe it or not students have lives outside of school. You say that video games are not necessary, but in the end what position is school in to tell students what order their priorities are in? If a soccer coach for a local recreation kid's team tells the kids on the team that soccer practice comes before homework, people would say the coach is out of place, and he cant control the kid's priorities. So how come when a teacher tells a student he must put his homework before soccer, do we think the teacher is right? Think about it. Why is school more important than soccer? Because the teacher said so? What gives them that power? School tells kids it is more important than their lives and what they want. School tells kids everything must come after school work and it does not matter what they think is important. And the parents blindly enforce the same rules.
Homework is necessary

Homework from school is very necessary. Student's need to train their brains on the subject, and they also have to know responsibility. The main drive behind homework is to teach kids responsibility. Video games is not a responsibility, television is not a responsibility, so students should not exclaim that they don't have enough time in the day to do it. While those things are good for cooling down the brain, they are not needed, and they can indeed come after homework is done. If students do not understand the work, then they should go to their school's after-school period to talk to their teacher. The student should not have another responsibility before homework. When sending their children off to school, parents ought to understand that homework and school work should come first with very few exceptions. Students need to learn prioritizing. Yes, students are challenged more than they used to be, but anyone can meet those challenges if they put their minds to it.
feminism is not correlated to gender equality.

First and second wave feminism were legitimate movements. Women deserve dignity and political equality. Third wave feminists want freedom without responsibility. They want preferential treatment for women while recasting female responsibility as systemic oppression. They want women to be dependent"not on men, but on the State. Of course, this is an outrageously misogynistic worldview. Despite literally millions of examples to the contrary, feminists simply presume that women can"t fend for themselves in a free society. Their agenda looks something like this: Free birth control Free abortions Maternity leave with raises and promotions (men can"t be permitted to earn more) The right to consider men guilty until proven innocent (abolition of due process) Bans on anti-feminist speech (and jail time for offenders like Milo Yiannopoulos) Do these sound like valid rights or nanny state privileges for presumed weaklings? Feminism is a misnomer. The movement has been infected with social justice disorder. If you doubt this, skim through a few feminist blogs. You"ll notice that before making an argument, the authors apologize for being straight, white, able-bodied, etc. Feeling shame for one"s existence or biological makeup isn"t natural; it"s a symptom of mental illness.
The Irish cannot go to the heaven

According to my genealology, I am mostly Irish. There's a little English, a little German, a little Norwegian, and way too much French in there, but the Irish wins out by a slight margin. Now my question is, if I am 5/8ths Irish, does that mean 5/8ths of me is prohibited from going to heaven? Because I know Irish do not go to heaven, but I wonder about people who are not entirely Irish? I mean, I worry that if only the French, German, Norwegian and English part of my soul go to heaven, then I will be only 3/8ths of a soul, and will probably lack hands, legs, etc. It worries me deeply. I do not want to go to heaven as a mutant. I believe strongly, however, that the Irish part cannot go to heaven. Therefore, if I live a good life, I will only be 3/8ths of a soul --- or, I will be disbarred from heaven entirely. The burden of proof is upon the Con to show that a little bit of Irish can still get into heaven, provided they do not act, think or speak in a stereo-typically Irish way. They can then become "honorary whatevers, just not Irish", and have a place in heaven. I looking forward to defeating you.
The Irish cannot go to the heaven

Now for my rebuttal/clarification/new points 1. First of all If in fact heaven does exist, there seems that there would be 2 possibilities for how you would get in 1. god looks at every person and what they have done in their life and makes a decision based on his opinion or 2. god makes a sort of program or set of rules or law if you want to call it that decides if you get into heaven (think of it as a test you are scored on your answers and either pass or fail) However it is very likely that god would look only at your ethnicity and choose if you get in because of it. Your point was that you are Irish you are for lack of a better definition a "bad person" and that therefore Irish do not go to heaven, but you have one major problem. I would agree that in your case you may not go to heaven, but you are not a model of all Irish and since we are in a debate that includes facts we can assume that there are Irish people out there that do amazing things and are amazing people. Therefore I highly doubt that someone as fair as god would not let any Irish into heaven just because of stereotypes. Furthermore I would argue that you are not sure if all of your bad traits came from your Irish dependence and therefore the Irish part of you would in fact make it into heaven but another part of you would not. 2. Next I would like to point out that your argument about heaven is indeed quite persuasive however the science against heaven Is much more conclusive and therefore it should not matter that heaven could exist but that science has shown us that theoretically heaven should not exist.
The Irish cannot go to the heaven

The Con writes that we cannot know if Jews go to heaven, because we do not know if heaven exists. Personally, I believe all Jews go to heaven. But the burden of poof rests with me to explain why. We do not have scientific evidence for heaven, but we do have a plethora of anecdotal evidence. It is not conclusive, but, I would argue, it is persuasive. Now, one might argue that these experiences are symptomatic of the dying brain --- yet, such does not explain the ability of NDE experiences to have knowledge of things going on around them (from an out-of-body-perspective) on the hospital bed when brain function is quite minimal. A good resource on such is found here: . http://www.near-death.com... Jews go to heaven because, by and large, Jews are decent, hard-working, well-educated, personally frugal and socially generous people. Often I wish I was Jewish but, alas, I am not. Having said that, if there is a heaven, and if Jews are quite likely to go there, for that very reason we can be certain that the Irish will not make it. I, for instance, am predominantly Irish, and I barely have a high-school education, have worked menial, dead-end jobs my whole life, have been a drunkard, a smoke, a law-breaker, promiscuous, rarely cleaning my car out, etc. as well as having general bad manners. I have almost never given to charity or helped anyone out, and the few times I was helpful it was solely for selfish reasons. All of this, by definition, would make my future in heaven quite unlikely --- and, even if I did make it to heaven, it is clear that my Irishness could not enter. I would submit to you that all faiths agree that these characteristics of my Irishiosity are such things that prevent future heavenly rewards. Having said that, I am now extremely depressed and need to play Mario Kart on Wii in order to forget my awful, tragic existence. The horror. . .
Employers hiring facebook users

Facebook TOS Section 4 line 8 "You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account" https://www.facebook.com... At first I thought you were talking about simply allowing a perspective employer to view ones Facebook page as a friend might, a way to get around privacy settings, but it is clear now given your other debate on this subject you are talking about user lever access. Facebook's TOS prohibits this. It seems you have confused the fact that human resource departments in an effort to hire quality individuals may try and find out as much as possible about perspective employees and in doing so look one up on Facebook, with perspective employers combing through ones personal life with a fine toothed comb to a level that one would need consent. While it is important to remember to be selective about what you post online. No company is asking for user level access to personal Facebook accounts. Pro, you have made several claims and at this point I ask for a creditable source that backs your worries. I also ask that you make a case on why we should comply since this was your original position. I am a maintenance worker in a factory. Yearly we are required to undergo certification, that we understand what type of information may be harmful to the company, things like trade secrets. It is not a worry about embarrassing information it a worry about competitive advantage. At no time is it require for us to give access to our personal internet activity.
Employers hiring facebook users

I think Pro may have a difficult argument to make with several issues that need to be addressed What if one does not have a Facebook account? What if one has multiple accounts? Why give up privacy? Would you have access to all other employee Facebook like your boss's or the CEO's(a matter of reciprocity) If one's private life s not affecting one's work then why should a company be interested in my personal life. It seems clear to me that if one gives their employer rights to view their Facebook page that the employer may use this info as they please giving the employee a disadvantage when it come to negotiation and job security. Other than access to a larger pool of jobs, Pro will need to show what advantages his proposal will entail and how they may overcome the disadvantages of working for a big brother-like employer.
are humans more valuble then animals

please use correct grammar, i cant understand what your typing. you argue that humans are changing but offer no facts to back up your statement. these incredibly harsh actions humans are taking to destroy this earth are happening now. if we continue like this in 100 years their will be no more rain forests. rain forests have survived millions and millions of years without humans and it will take us 200 to kill it. 2015 was the largest year of deforestation sense 2005 which means humans are going back to their destructive ways and not CHANGING at all. so yes to the earth humans are worthless and not valuable at all. i have already debunked his intelligence argument multiple times and my opponent has not made any sense at all through his last 3 arguments. he/she has provided no evidence nor reasoning behind the points he made and offered no argument over my facts and evidence. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
are humans more valuble then animals

huh looks like my opponent has missed his turn to rebuttal against my points. so im just going to let those same facts stand and add a few more. human produce around 710 billion of acres of green house gasses a year which is destroying the atmosphere. humans act suicidal on how they treat the earth. to us earth is life and we seem to destroy it willingly without giving it second thoughts. no other animal can do that nor have they done that. to make this point clear im going to personify the earth. if the earth could make a choice on who's more valuable who would it pick? the humans who are destroying it? or the millions and millions of animals who thrive on it? the answer is clear to anyone who isn't a moron. their are also. their are about 8.74 million speices of animals in the world this means their are hundreds of billions of animals in this world and to say humans are more valuble would be both selfish and ignorant.
are humans more valuble then animals

Im not sure what you are exactly trying to say about intelligence but it sounds like you are trying to say is teachers and parents are much more valuable the children which is not true, and what would we, the intelligent ones need to be protected against other then ourselves. humans as a group are dangerous and suicidal with their use of resources. we use them with out rationing. but enough on the intelligence piece of this debate. i would like my opponent to also argue the other points i brought up such as being more valuable to the earth. after sleeping on wether or not humans are valuable i decided in order to have value you must be valued by something else. the only thing that actually would could and should value humans are humans. humans have decimated over 322 species of animals, produce 220 million pounds of waster a year and even as said above destroy 18 million acres of trees this is 784,080,000,000 square feet a year. that is roughly the size of panama check it out on a map. so yes only to the human species do we have any sort of value. that not even always true. as seen in the past with african American slavery. two genecides of the jewish people including the holocuast, and years and years of unprovoked repression shows that humans do not value each other.
are humans more valuble then animals

Well you are wrong intelligence DOES means something. Have you been a child or not? The teachers AND the parents love the ones who gets top 3 all the time! Intelligences makes us valuable BECAUSE NONE OF OTHER LIVING THINGS ARE MORE INTELLIGENCE THAN US. SO WE INTELLIGENCE ONES NEED TO BE PROTECTED! It is a big need to be intelligence. In the social life, parents, businessman and government wants intelligent people. If there is two man, one intelligent one not...... People would chose the intelligent one. This shows that intelligence really means something. As a chooser of this debate challenge, HUMANS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN ANIMALS.
are humans more valuble then animals

ok i Have already stated my view on the intelligence aspect of this debate. intelligence does not mean we are more valuable. it just means we have more intelligence. lets say i have more intelligence then you (just an example) does that make me as a human more valuable then you? no it doesn't. and i would prefer to leave any sort of god out of it sense god is not a fact and instead a belief. maybe i should have been more clear on the topic. so what im going to argue next is that animals are more valuable to the earth then humans. according to http://www.livescience.com... over 18 million acres of trees are lost each year due to humans which hurts the atmosphere and ultimately destroys this earth not other animal does that amount of harm to this planet called home. their for we would be less valuable to the earth.
are humans more valuble then animals

Well as you say that animal are really like humans. I agree, because we are from the animals. But what we are more valuable is that we have intelligence. When our mum scolds me(coz I am stupid) I told her to think of the other animals which were stupider than me. If in an animal family, one is the cleverest, it still cannot be as intelligent as human, don't say they are more intelligent that human. Intelligence----that is what human depends on. Without intelligence, we cannot survive. The world would become more black, (though if you say that this gives more land for animals to survive). God give cleverness and intelligence to us to make us special, not make us stupid, and he,,,,,,,, makes us really, really, really valuable.
Why megabloks can be better that lego

As far as the variety of sets are concerned I'd go with lego over mega blocks hands down. Personally I don't like the detail in mega blocks or lego for that matter, because the whole reason I like to build with lego blocks is to create new things and put blocks together in ways no one has thought of. Detailed blocks which only fit together in certain ways don't seem to help in this respect. But my main complaint against mega blocks is the lack of quality in their construction, unless they've improved since I've used them, they either won't fit together, barely fit together so that it is impossible to pull them apart once you do manage to put them together or they don't stick together at all. Legos, by contrast, are much more consistent and durable.
Why megabloks can be better that lego

These megabloks have more features to them as so, cool brands, like halo for teens or grown kids or even Dora and true hero squad for toddlers they supply to more activity the mini figures are just an outstanding toy because the have such great detailing joint movement rather then your plain Lego figures that cant even bend there arm and that can get aggravating and if you like it like that they have the firemen ones or the police ones and most of the time there weapons and accesories are real unlike Lego guns that have no real design but rather an easy way out by not putting time and effort now i have been collecting Lego for 2 years back when i was like 7 and 2 years too i have collected megabloks and when it comes to deciding what to use my freinds, me would always pick megabloks now they can be hard to stick together but with the proper push they can stick loose lego can happen to o on lego
Feminism

Feminism is real, of course it is, but the wage gap is a myth. The "wage gap" also known as the earnings gap, takes the incomes of men and women and compares them. Total income, not adjusting for hours worked, jobs worked, or choices made. (1) And what women have to understand is that this is okay. Women are more capable of doing things like taking care of their children, as they are more compassionate, (2) so they take time to spend with their kids. "If there was a woman and a man applying to become an astronaut, they'd most likely choose the man." Do you have proof for this? And even if you do is this discrimination? Discrimination is defined as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." (3) Is this treatment unfair? Is it unfair to realize that biologically speaking men are in better shape then women on average (4), so a job that needs the highest level of fitness might look for a guy more than a girl? Now let me ask you a question, I am a 6 foot tall white guy, is it discriminatory if I get cut from an NBA team because I tried to play center? No I do not have the physical skills that are required, and that is fair. 1. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...) 2. (https://psmag.com...) 3. (https://www.google.com...) 4. (http://www.livescience.com...)
President Barack Obama has affected the economy in a positive way.

I only have 1000 characters, so I must be quick. 1. My opponent attempts to condemn Obama for creating jobs, saying they are not good enough. Fallacious reasoning, as 3% more people with jobs at all needs to be given with at least some token. Raising the minimum wage will also raise government jobs according to the CRS and CBO.2. My opponenet made an outright wrong statement regarding the deficit. It has actually shrunk 300 billion, and will likely reach 550 billion down by the end of 2015.3. My opponent attempted to slant the congressional finances as Obama's fault. This is foolish. We spend closer to 30 billion on congress, on terms they actually get anything done. GOP house is the least effective in history.4. Coal? People have forgotten what being a part of a nation is. The government is doing its duty of protecting the people from deadly fumes and old styled pollution.5. Obama has raised stock market trade 140%. Yay!!!! <---- That trumps all arguments