BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework should not be banned in school

Most students might feel that homework is an extremely tedious and useless task to do but throw me tomatoes and banana peels because I believe otherwise. Homework can help students in a plethora of ways both consciously and unconsciously. First and foremost, students are bound to become more responsible by fulfilling this task. This is because it is a given task to be completed and submitted at a due date. They will learn what they must do and when they must do it. Consequently, their time managing skills will improve. They will learn how to divide their tasks among other extra curricular activities and set aside 'tv' time or 'computer game' time which will be helpful in organization and peace of mind. Homework is also a productive way to pass time. Most teenagers or students spend their time online playing games or checking notifications on facebook to see the latest comments and likes. Doing something that would enhance their brain (as they are still young) such as math exercises or reviewing problems would be a much better way to spend time than looking at the latest post in the news feed. This leads me to my next point which is that homework increases ones knowledge. There is a reason why the teacher wants the students to review on a subject matter. If they were doing mediocre or possibly horrible at a test, facing and repeating the challenge is a must in order to prevent future mistakes from happening in their tests. No matter how much one loathes it, I believe homework is a necessary part of a student's life and should not be taken away from his/her duties
Religion in public schools

I understand what you are saying. You are making a value claim. I am arguing that you don't have any basis for your argument on the value claim. You attempt to appeal to society for your claim, citing the separation of Church and State. First of all, this idea separates the State from endorsing religion, but discussion of religion in shools is an issue not covered by that law. Secondly, you cannot appeal to society for moral objectivity, as I've already pointed out that different societies have different morals, like Nazi Germany when they massacred millions of people. Why appeal to American laws? What makes these better than the laws of any other society?You are making a value claim, and from the standpoint of the atheistic paradigm, you only have moral relativism to appeal to, which does not give you grounds for making said value claim about school policies.
Religion in public schools

That isn't my claim at all I'm simply pointing out that you can't endorse one god without it being offensive to someone. Religion has NO place in a public school and he had no right to assume that my child has any type of belief. I'm fine with people being spiritual or religious however you want to phrase it but it's personal keep it to yourself. I do not wish to religiously indoctrinate my children and a subject I had made a decision not to talk to my children about until they reached an age of reason has now been introduced to my son and I am now forced to have this discussion with him. It would be a little different to me had my son come home saying he heard it from another child as a teacher cannot control what the children talk about at all times, but it's very unlikely that at ten years old these kids would be discussing religious beliefs. The existence of a god isn't the argument here, it's the fact that it is unacceptable to bring god into the classroom. Church and state should always remain separate and as this is a public school it is funded by the government. If people want a god and religious beliefs in a classroom there are private schools for that.
Religion in public schools

I would like to apologize, as I have misinterpreted one of the claims by my opponent. She would either have all religions be taught equally, or no religions at all, as either case will not push only one religion on the students. This puts me to argue that it is okay to discuss only one religion with children in a public school. (This puts me into an argument that I was not ready for, but I think I can work this)Even if teachers don't expose students to religion, it is more than likely that the other students will expose each other. There will be religious students in your son's classroom, and at some point he will be exposed to things that they believe in. If it were to come from an authority figure, like the teacher, I can see why that would be more discomforting, as that makes the child more likely to accept those beliefs as being true. Here is my contention: If God does exist, then it would not be morally wrong to expose children to religion, because objective moral values would exist.If God does not exist, then there is only moral relativism. One cannot say "This or that ought not to happen".If God does not exist, we are here only by the process of chance and evolution. We are mere accidental collocations of atoms. Morality is just a societal construct, so ethics are relative to each person. We each decide what is right or wrong for us, but if one atheist says to another, "You ought not to do this", they are an intellectual hypocrite. One can argue that society decides morals. But what happens when a society like Nazi Germany massacred millions of people? How can an atheist say that their morals were wrong? Morality is relative, we each define our own ethics. You may disagree with their ethics, but that is your subjective opinion.ConclusionTherefore, if God exists, then He causes objective morals upon humanity. Then, in this case, schools should expose children to God's existence, because it is ethical.If God does not exist, one atheist cannot tell somebody else what they ought not to do, because morality is subjective. How dare you tell another human being what their own personal ethical value system should be. That is intellectual hypocracy.
Religion in public schools

Sorry about that I thought I did post the title. It was a Harry Potter book oddly enough. My son didn't indicate any type of religious belief, it was 100% assumption on his teacher's part. I do not want my children taught about religion of any kind until they have reached an age of reason. When they are able to understand and research religious beliefs is when I will discuss options with them. I am now forced to have that discussion with my son. Public schools are solely for educating, not for discussing personal religious beliefs. If a parent wants their child to be exposed to religion in school then they should enroll their child in a private non secular school. Children from all types of different backgrounds attend public school and parents shouldn't have to wonder if they are being exposed to any type of religious belief. I should be the one who will discuss religion with my son when he is old enough to make an educated decision. I never pretended Santa brought presents or the tooth fairy left money under their pillow. My children knew at a young age that those fairy tales weren't true, but with the way religion is revered in today's society any young child will be inclined to believe it. I know that the school wouldn't allow a teacher to tell one of the students there is no God, the parents would have a fit if that happened. Why should I have to be okay with this man implying that there is a god. If religion is allowed in schools then you would have to include all religions and atheism. No parent would be okay with a teacher telling their students that satanism is the one true religion (unless the parent was a satanist). So no, I wasn't being sarcastic at all. If one religion is allowed in public schools then all must be. Religion is a personal belief and there is no need of it in public schools. I don't have a choice but to send my children to a public school because I cannot afford a private one. Public schools only purpose is to educate out children, not implicate the existence of a god.
Religion in public schools

Hi, thanks for the opportunity to debate. I hope for an engaging discussion :)You didn't specify the book that the teacher gave your son, so I'm not sure whether it's a religious or a secular book. For the time being, I'll only focus on the text inside the book (and you can specify what the book was in the next round). The text itself shows that either your son has previously indicated religious belief (maybe unknowingly), or that the teacher incorrectly assumed that your son is religious. In either case, the text itself does not show that the teacher was being deceitful. I'll concede that the teacher should be more careful from now on, but I see no issue with the teacher speaking to a student personally about religion if the student is knowingly religious.That being said, your issue is that a teacher exposed someone else to a belief that was not shared. You are arguing that either, no belief should be shared at all, or all beliefs should be shared. I assume the latter was more of a sarcastic remark, as it's inentions were that we would assume that there are too many religions for the students to be exposed to, so that would be a waste of time. So, you are specifically arguing that religion should be completely kept out of public schools.I think keeping religion out of schools defeats the purpose of a public school. Public schools are for children to receive an education while also learning about the diversity of other students. Private schools are for those who do not wish to be exposed to a wide variety of culture. If you are an atheist, I assume it is because you see religion is illogical. If this is true, you should have no issues with your son being exposed to fairy tales, as he will be able to refute the claims made by said tales. As your son will be exposed to religion eventually, the best time is when he is young. Most kids at this age belief in "magical" things, and start to realize how reality works. Maybe your son has recently figured out that Santa isn't real. If they are exposed to religion at a young age, when they are older, they will see it as a childish and illogical concept.In conclusion, I think staff and students should be free to talk about their personal beliefs, as it welcomes everyone into the mixture of cultures, and allows for more understanding of other people instead of ignorance and fear. Embrace the culture, but still encourage the child to think for himself.
Religion in public schools

My 10 year old son's teacher gave him a book and on the inside cover wrote, "Stay strong and keep faith in God." I'm an atheist and do not push any kind of belief on my children and I was very upset by this. I brought it to the attention of the principal and was brushed off as though I had no right to complain. I'm very disgusted that this teacher would just assume that my child is religious. Religion needs to be kept out of public schools. If religion is going to brought into a public school then every religion deserves recognition. Not everyone shares the same belief.
This House Believes 0.99* Equals 1!

I am sorry for the delay. It was one thing after another, and I could not get to this sooner. I feel that in this debate, I need not disprove my opponent's entire case one by one. As I am the Proposition, if I can beyond a doubt show in my round []T which T standing for the resolution then I win. This is as simple as it gets. I will present a series of proofs. The first will be simple, an algebraic proof, the next two will be fairly complex. As for my opponent's algebraic formula I should tel him that anything into infinity is infinity, and infinity minus/plus/anything one/any other number is infinity.[1] Often novices in Mathematics make a mistake of assuming a 9 at the end. I use * to show recurring. It is not that 1-0.99*=0.00...01. This is wrong[2]. The one comes after infinity, so it both exists, and does not exist. THE ALGEBRAIC PROOF Let us suppose the value of 0.99* as 'x'. So x=0.99* Thereby 10x=9.99* This may be written as 10x=9.00+0.99* Then let us remove 0.99* by doing so that 9x=9.00+0.99*-0.99* (as x=0.99*) We therefore have 9x=9 Using algebra x=9/9 Which yields in x=1. We have therefore shown algebraically that 0.99* is in fact the same as one. It is here that we have already won this debate. Let us show you another algebraic proof. Let us take the fraction 1/9 In decimal form it is 0.11* Let us multiply it with 9 We get 0.99* This can also be proved from Decedent Numbers, p-Adic numbers, Calculus works on the assumption of this. It is how limits work with k-->0. Or any such thing, to disprove the statement is impossible, and if one does it then all Mathematics shall fail. [1]Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics [2]Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction by Timothy Gowers
Students should not wear uniform

1. According to the Dept. of Education the average student to pupil ratio is U.S. schools is 20:1 in High Schools the ratio is 16:1. The average elementary school has 450 students and the average high school 750. I believe it is possible for an educator to maintain a sense of order within the school walls and reprimand students who are caught bullying peers. Children's lives are not limited to school. Unless we are going to put children in uniforms from birth till graduation they will be exposed to each other in apparel other than a school uniform and bullying will still take place. 2. Limiting creativity to the arts is Cons. answer to helping young people be creative and build a sense of identity. If a child wishes to do something differently than their peers they should play an instrument or paint a picture. Unfortunately in a school these activities are highly structured and are meant to develop technique and not to develop one's own sense of artistic expression. 3. The problem with uniforms and structured learning is that it develops uniform people. The real problem is poor parenting. A child learns from it's environment to be a bully. Masking children's differences isn't going to make a difference, if anything it could prolong one's lack of acceptance of differences and create greater discrimination in adulthood.
Students should not wear uniform

You blame school authorities for letting bullying but most schools have over 1,000 students and a handful of staff about 3 dozen at most there's too much students to take care of . My opponent claims that wearing uniforms takes children's creativity but the school helps give the student creativity by giving then an elective . Like me I chose music which helps me by giving me the chance to make music and you don't have to chose music you can choose art how does art not include creativity . And my last argument you state that I stated the cloths but I said in my opinion bbecouse I might not have been fact but I still stay with my claim even if it doesn't have evidence
Students should not wear uniform

1. Within the school walls school faculty can prevent much of the discrimination that takes place among students. If a child is being belittled at school it is a failure of authorities within the environment. 2. You argue that uniforms will prevent students from being able to identify less fortunate students and single them out for bullying and therefor lessen the frequency of children committing suicide. However, many of the social groups formed in a school are based on activities outside of school such as sports, church, and scouts. The interactions or lack there of in these activities are far more likely to play a major role in bullying. 3. Your argument that clothes play a role in developing racist ideologies in children doesn't sit well with me. Racism is a learned idea created from within a child's environment and is based on race. Uniforms may mask cultural differences within a student body but cannot mask race. 4. Institutionalization limits creativity. People always express themselves though the clothes that they wear. A lack of variety may hinder the creativity of our youth resulting in a loss of the innovation that has been the driving force behind the United States success.
Students should not wear uniform

Let me start of by saying that children should wear uniform to school . My reasons are listed in nice order and hope my opponent gives me a great debate . My links will be put in the bottom of my argument . Reasons why students should wear uniforms. 1 . Not all students will be able to afford nice cloths so there would be a lot of bullying for those who can't afford it . 2 . Bullying has been found responsible many student suicide and making it a law will increase suicide rates . 3 . There would be an increase in rasisiam in my opinion meaning I don't have much evidence to prove it but its based in the taught that if you say something an giants one person of a race then evreyone will think that that's true about the entire culture . I hope my opponent sees these as plausible reasons to why students should wear uniforms good luck. http://www.nl.idebate.org...
Liberals are ruining America

Due to my opponent not being online to post his closing, I ask voters, if any, to vote not because of the "FF", but what has been said here. I'd rather my skill and rhetoric still be weighed in against Pro. I will make a short close, since my opponent didn't get one and it could only be fair, and it's all I need. As I've said, I explained the different types of liberals and how a liberal should be. And what my opponent tried to assert was not liberals, but someone else who calls themselves liberals. That his accusations were fallacious in nature. I hope this leads to those of the right to better understand the left in a better view. I will close now and say, vote con, as there's honestly nothing left to say. I wont waste my time on a closing argument where my opponent didn't have one.
Liberals are ruining America

The Liberal agenda is full of a list of liberties that are going to be taken away from Americans the fairness doctrine is a document that let's the democrats go through our conversations and stop us from saying for example I do not like liberals when we have free speech that is unconstitutional along with taking guns from Americans the gangs or other law disobeying people get guns and shoot people who can't defend themselves taking them away isn't a solution look at the other countries that do it the liberals as a whole are not great fun people to be around btw the Republican Party is not perfect but still better the liberals in my life have done nothing but be arrogant claim tolerance and yet be intolerant as well I'm a catholic I have a great understanding of my faith the liberals I know we're atheist they say they don't care about me being catholic they still undermine me and say God isn't real all the time it's my choice and liberty to believe what I want I could say I'm a taco that uses the force and the liberals say ok but if I'm catholic they hate me it's a corrupt people at this point I ask for u to be understanding give faith a chance and overall be a good person
Steph curry is better than lebron james

This is not my opinion, this is the facts. Lebron James is an overall better defender, and passer. Period. Even though Steph Curry had a better season this 2015-2016 season but guess what Lebron in his prime and you can say this is Steph Curry prime years. Lebron beats him in Points, rebounds, assists and blocks and steals so lets see your next topic.
The ideas behing hunger games are wrong

Firstly, my opponent offers no proof that something catastrophic like the Hunger Games wouldn't happen in real life, which doesn't necessarily help her case because whether or not I prove it could happen, it doesn't impact my case. An instance of something similar to the Hunger Games in its awfulness is the Holocaust. It could happen, thus the book the Hunger Games is a learning book. The book is not saying that killing is ok. The book is saying that the government can try to force you to endorse something wrong to oppress you. The book never states that killing is ok, so that argument is void.
Germ theory is a fraud

1. All I need to prove is that germ theory is a fraud. The key word being fraud. Thus, if any part of the theory is fraudulent, then, the entire theory should be considered as a general fraud. One cannot commit a partial fraud. Thus, in order to win my case; all I have to prove is one case of where it was claimed that a germ caused a disease and it was later found that it wasn't a germ that caused it. Note - One cannot commit a partial murder, for example. It is a black and white issue. A murder is either committed or not committed. The jury must decide, not the defendant, nor the prosecution. 2. Dr Garth Nicholson talks about disease in military cases and applications. This is not particularly relevant to the issues at hand in this case. I would put forward the fact that biological weapons have never been successfully deployed in a combat situation. This is because - 'germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of a disease' (Antoine Bechamp) Dr Garth Nicholson does not mention vitamin deficiency, chemical poisoning or vaccination chemicals as being the cause of the soldiers disease. Thus, he has not considered all possible causes and is blinkered and biased in his thinking concerning disease origins. 3. My opponent has not responded to many of my claims put forward in my opening statement. I am still waiting for his response to these issues. If he continues to not respond to my statements, then, I should be able to claim victory on this matter by default. Avoidance is not a proper method of debate and should be considered as morally irresponsible behaviour. 4. My opponent has not commented on the video and book evidence that I have provided. He has stated that he doesn't know much about germ theory which is evident in his responses. My opponent thinks that I am vulnerable to germs because I don't believe in germ theory. On the contrary, I don't get any diseases, viruses or suffer from neurological disorders. This is because I understand that diet is the cause of most disease. I also understand that dangerous chemicals can cause disease. Thus, I avoid preservatives and processed foods which may contain dangerous chemicals.
Germ theory is a fraud

First off I thank you for accepting my challenge. I did skim through your resources. Honestly, I'm not even sure what the germ theory is. All my life I've heard that smoking causes cancer like a drum beat. So lets do a little fact checking and see if smoking causes cancer. Also lets see if the fact that smoking causes cancer is mutually exclusive to the germ theory. "Starting with the 1964 Surgeon General"s Report and followed by each subsequent Surgeon General"s Report that has included a review of the evidence on smoking and lung cancer, an enormous body of scientific evidence clearly documents that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, and that cigarette smoking is the major cause of lung cancer." cancer.gov Yes smoking causes cancer. But is cancer a disease? "Cancer is a disease " cdc.gov Yes cancer is a disease. "The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. " Key word some, as opposed to all. Therefore I claim that the fact that lifestyle factors like smoking, diet, and exercise which can cause disease and environmental factors like pollutants, radioactive waste, does not falsify the hypothesis of the germ theory. In other-words in order to prove the hypothesis of the germ theory wrong and thus falsify it you need to prove that germs never cause disease in any circumstance. Seriously, good luck falsifying the germ theory. Whether or not the majority of disease is caused by germs or other causes is irrelevant. As long as one incident of disease has been caused by germs, the hypothesis holds. If you watch the below video with Dr. Garth Nicolson he confirms that pathogens are a threat. That mycoplasma infections are what are causing a lot of these mystery diseases. As long as you think the germ theory is a fraud you are vulnerable to these infections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.cancer.gov...