BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Colonizing other planets

Thanks to bodog for accepting. In this argument, I will aim to prove that colonization of planets is beneficial to the long-term sustainability of the human race. Disaster Prevention In the event of a catastrophic disaster, which affects the Earth"s ecosystem and threatens to destroy all of human life, like a meteor strike or global warming, it is imperative we have somewhere else to live. While each different planet has its own potential disasters, the spreading out of human life is essential to humanity"s survival. If we run into a problem we cannot solve, it would be good to have a backup planet to go to. During a war, you don"t place your army in one place. You spread it out. Speaking of war, if a hostile alien species attacks us, we could flank the opposing forces by spreading to other systems. A dispersed guerrilla force can be exceptionally effective, as shown in history by the Huns and American revolutionaries . We could turn colonies into effective units ready to protect Earth. Overpopulation and Resource Shortages As the Earth"s population grows, it is inevitable that resource shortages will occur. If we build colonies, this may never happen. Resources can be found on other Earth-like planets, meaning that locals may never have issues with starvation. In fact, a galactic trade-system could be set up.(I will come back to that later) Children in the future may be starving if we do not set up colonies on other planets. Economics, or MONEY!!!!! Of course, there are also economic incentives to pursue this. Mines could be established on Mars or the Moon, gathering valuable materials that have nearly ceased to exist. Stronger alloys could be constructed, resulting in safer infrastructure. Another incentive could be the tourism industry, as well as the spacecraft industry. Tourism would shoot up in colonies, which will probably be more naturally beautiful. Also, the glamour of going off of Earth would be incredibly attractive. And of course, space travel companies would rake money in, profiting from the whole scenario gleefully. It would be much more economically beneficial. In conclusion, an endeavor to another Earth-like planet would be beneficial to humanity"s long term survival All info comes from common knowledge.
The Death Penalty

I would first like to refer my opponent to the case of Ryan Matthews who at the age 17 was charged and sentenced to death, but was exonerated years later after DNA evidence indicated that he was in face innocent. The most concerning aspect of this is what if he wasn't exonerated, the answer of course being that the state would have convicted and killed an innocent man. People are on death row sometimes as long as 15 or 20 years, before DNA testing was reliable or used. The use of the death penalty as a deterrent is not an effective method because the act of murder is an act of passion meaning when a murderer kills they don't weight the pros and cons of the action they are about to undertake, and those who commit pre-meditated murder they assume that they wont get caught so a deterrent such as the death penalty. In fact studies have shown most effective way to deter crime is to simply employ more police officers to patorl the street. The idea of nationally broadcasted execution at 8:00pm is utterly insane, as these period of time is considered prime time, a time when many families sit down together and watch their favorite television shows as a family. The last thing any country needs are thousands of traumatized children! And as for your citations of the bible for reasons to sentence others to death it is unfair and unjust. People are of different religions and some don't believe in the bible. How would you like it if you were sentenced to death because of what the Qur'an says? Not to mention the fact that punishment based on what the bible says is unconstitutional because of the separation between church and state laid out within it.
Theory of Sivashanmugam

To be precisely, the theory of sivashanmugam addresses, 1. Where will one find divisibility? 2. Where will one find comparability? 3. Where will one find connectivity? 4. Where will one find sensitiivty? 5. Where will one find transformability? 6. Where will one find substitututability? 7. Where will one find satisfiability? In accordance with the definition of 'universal laws of nature', these recur in nature. The thoery of sivashanmugam also declares that - No theory qualies to be a theory of evolution because none of the theories explain the origin of: 1. divisibility 2. comparability ... 7. satisfiability. Quantum mechanics says that photons and quarks are indivisible. Therefore, I overthrow the theory of sivashanmugam
Theory of Sivashanmugam

Thanks, Con, for instigating. Con claims that "the nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature." Before responding to this, it's important to outline what the laws of nature are. Princeton's WordNet defines a law of nature as "a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; 'the laws of thermodynamics.'"[1] 1. Performative contradiction of the resolution A performative contradiction occurs "when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the noncontingent presuppositions that make possible the performance of the speech act."[2] An example would be claiming "I don't exist" or "all propositions are false." In this particular instance, even if we grant that the "laws of nature" can explain the "nature of anything," because such laws must be first be adduced empirically, they can never explain the nature of understanding or the acquisition of knowledge itself. In order to discover the laws of nature, we must begin with a sound theory of epistemic justification. 2. The laws of nature are contingent Many natural laws are contingent truths, meaning that it is conceivable they could be otherwise.[3] Contingent facts can never explain the nature of any necessary facts. Marc Lange explains: "even if 'F' does indeed make 'A' necessary, the account will not have succeeded in revealing what necessity consists in, since 'F' is the very same kind of fact that the account was supposed to be explicating." Examples of such necessary truths include moral facts and the laws of logic.[4] 3. The laws of nature have no bearing on abstract objects Natural laws only explain the way *physical* things interact. Such laws tell us nothing about the "nature" of abstract objects such as propositions, concepts, classes, the number 7, etc.[5] Conclusion: Physical laws are useless for understanding non-physical objects. Moreover, the contingent status of natural laws makes it logically impossible to derive from them any substantive information pertaining to necessary facts and abstract objects. Con's mystic, pseudo-philosophical ramblings have been thoroughly debunked. References: 1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://plato.stanford.edu... 4. http://plato.stanford.edu... 5. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Homework

Alright so first things first, I forgot to actually link my source by accident for last round, so here it is: . http://news.stanford.edu... Now for rebuttals: Rebuttal 1: "However, yes homework can be counterproductive but that is called busy work". Let"s define homework shall we. Homework: "schoolwork that a student is required to do at home. " No matter what it is, even if you throw around terms like busy work, homework is homework. "They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night", stated from . http://news.stanford.edu... Whether it be homework or your so called "busy work", its effectiveness plateaus at around two hours per night. Rebuttal 2: "this is caused by students with poor time management. ". To a point I agree with you here, but at this point we can"t really blame the students. If an excess amount of them have these health issues, it gets to a point where we can"t blame the students. Rebuttal 3: You haven"t been taking sleep deprivation seriously enough here so let"s lay down some effects for you: -High blood pressure -Heart attacks -Stroke -Diabeetes -Heart failure So, potentially, homework can kill you. Next, sleep deprivation also plays a role in learning, hurting grades at school. Quoted from webmd, "Sleep plays a critical role in thinking and learning. Lack of sleep hurts these cognitive processes in many ways. First, it impairs attention, alertness, concentration, reasoning, and problem solving. This makes it more difficult to learn efficiently. " No doubt about it, homework has its positives, being -(sometimes) improved learning (if given in moderation) -Better performance in the class But cons include -Numerous health conditions that can be caused by the excessive amount of homework given (3.1 hours on average per night) -Homework starting to become counter productive -Struggles learning due to sleep deprivation Last thing, I know I have burden of proof, but can I get a source when you say "homework can lead to greater memory" Now let"s ask ourselves a question. Is somewhat improved learning worth these risks? I leave it at that. Over to you.
Homework

You made some very excellent points on the negative aspects on homework. However, yes homework can be counterproductive but that is called busy work. Busy work is homework that is non productive to the subject you are studying. Trust me I have gotten busy work for years from many teachers. You are not taking in affect of the positives. Homework encourages good time use. With this ability you can schedule your sleep habits and work ethic, you can prevent sleep deprivation and promote good work ethic. This supports the statement you said " homework has been linked to causing health issues in students such as sleep deprivation", this is caused by students with poor time management. Homework can strengthen personal time management. Homework can also increase memory and thinking strategies. Homework reviews what was gone over in class and this can help you on tests. When you said "the negatives outweigh the positives." you are not taking in effect of the big picture. Sleep deprivation is very much like being drunk. Being drunk is not big picture. I know I am going off topic by talking about inebriation so I digress. The big picture is that you can never use too much time on helping your brain. When you also said "Students were more likely to drop activities" this is caused by homework. Here is a scenario, imagine you want to be a network engineer but you do the homework in the engineering class and you realize you suck at this course and you want to drop it. The homework taught you that network engineering is not you strong suit and you LEARNED that you cannot be in that field. Homework is not only just positive learning. This goes along with what you said about health problems it causes. It teaches you that too much homework can lead to sleep deprivation. I say in the big picture, the long term positives outweigh the short term negatives. Over to you
Homework

It"s often stated that the dislike of homework is simply kids being lazy, but what people don"t understand is the negative effects it can bring. Quoted from stanford, "Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school." (1) They say two and a half hours of homework is optimal, however the average amount of homework given is 3.1 hours per night, and again quoted from stanford, too much homework can be counter productive. Another downside is how homework has been linked to causing health issues in students such as sleep deprivation. Quoted from stanford, "In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems". (1) Next, I"d like to address your point when you say "Many students hate obtaining homework when they have after school activities or they just are lazy." Laziness does play a role in this, but students who dislike homework because of extra curricular activities have a solid reason. As stated by stanford, Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were "not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills," according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy. Homework is a balancing act. No one questions homework can be beneficial at times, but in the current state, the negatives outweigh the positives. Over to you
Homework

This is an open debate so feel free to comment and start debating me on your stance on homework. This topic is about the use of homework in schools. Many students hate obtaining homework when they have after school activities or they just are lazy. They hate the stress and cannot handle the amounts so they would rather not have any. What they don't understand is that homework is more substantial than just studying the night before a test, that is not an opinion that is a fact. The main reason why is that homework increases brain power on that particular subject and it makes studying much easier.
the Catholic Church is Evil

ok. It was but I was just making a point. Wikipedia is made and corrected by the public. In most books I read it says whenever converted Jews were were suspected of secretly practicing the Sabbath they were tortured and forced to admit this. once they admitted,they were burned at stake. Then the greedy church would take all of the people's items for their own. Plus back then almost all the Bishops, priests, etc were rich. What happened to taking an oath of poverty! The Christians also went on to attack the Muslims and try to kill them all. Thousands died in those campaigns. All because they didn't want to share Jerusalem. Ever heard of Charlemagne? During the Saxon wars he beheaded 4500 Saxons that he caught praying to their own gods after he converted them to Christianity.
the Catholic Church is Evil

I accept. The burden of proof shall be on my opponent to show that the Catholic Church is evil.PlagiarismMy opponent's entire case is plagiarized from wikipedia.Wikipedia states:The methods most used, and common in other secular and ecclesiastical tribunals, were garrucha, toca and the potro.[60] The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by the wrists, which are tied behind the back. Sometimes weights were tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[64] The toca, also called interrogatorio mejorado del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning (see: waterboarding).[65] Thepotro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently. (1)Sound familliar?This right here should result in a loss of points.A formalized version of my opponent's argumentMy opponent's argument is essentially:P1: Any organization which has ever inflicted torture on people is an evil organization.P2: The Catholic Church is an organization which has inflicted torture on people.C: The Catholic Churc is an evil organization.This is a valid BARBARA categorical syllogism (2), and it captures the gist of my opponent's argument.Since the burden of proof is on my opponent, he must show that the premises are true. He has not done so, so the argument cannot yet be considered sound and his burden has not been met.However, the first premise is very questionable. An organization is nothing else other than the people that make it up. Just because an organization at one time inflicted torture on people, we cannot necessarily say this is an evil organization.ConclusionMy opponent's argument is entirely plagiarized, and is unfounded. All he has done is make bare assertions and copy and paste from wikipedia. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2)http://upload.wikimedia.org...
the Catholic Church is Evil

The catholic church has had several inquisitions resulting in the deaths of many people. The church than took all their property for their own. These people were bloody smart too Although the Inquisition was technically forbidden from permanently harming or drawing blood, this still allowed for methods of torture. The methods most used, and common in other secular and ecclesiastical tribunals, were garrucha, toca and the potro. The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by the wrists, which are tied behind the back. Sometimes weights were tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[64] The toca, also called interrogatorio mejorado del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning (see: waterboarding).[65] The potro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently. EVIL=Church
LeBron James will never be a top ten player in NBA history

I extend all arguments. With my K, I have clearly demonstrated that you can no predict the future directly. Even if he isn't Top 10 material as of now, it is *still* unreasonable to say that he will never be one of the top 10 best NBA players. Current stats cannot be used to produce an exact sight of the future. The central problem with a resolution such as this is that it runs into truism. Stating that LeBron James will never be a top ten player in NBA history is a very self confident claim in and of itself and is impossible to prove correct. You must show that there is a 100% chance that he will never be one of the top ten players, and in addition, that he will be unable to win more championships that would give him a chance to be one of the top ten. Your arguments haven't proven to me that he will declone as well. First off, you are basing what might happen to LeBron James off of would happened with Michael Jordan, which is making assumptions. You should never base one person's stats off of another person's stats. Michael Jordan is *not* LeBron James. Secondly, stating that he is not as popular as he used to be is only showing his current state, and since you did not properly show how he could decline, we don't truly know whether or not he will become popular again. Your arguments as a whole don't convince me that LeBron James will never be one of the top ten NBA players of all time. Summary of your arguments- Michael Jordan declined in terms of ranking LeBron James is not as popular as he used to be and so..... -----> LeBron James will never be one of the top 10 NBA players because of (?) reason. Without the evidence to prove he has no chance of being one of the top ten, my kritik stands and remains unrefuted.
LeBron James will never be a top ten player in NBA history

There is evidence that LeBron James will not be in the top ten in the future. First of all look at his stats. For his career he averages 27.3 points, 7.1 rebounds, 6.9 assists etc. Those are good stats but he will not be able to keep them through his whole career. He is going to decline at some point. He's going on 31 so he has only a few years left in his prime. Michael Jordan declined averaging only 18.5 points per game in his last two seasons compared to his career average of 30.1. So, statistically, LeBron James will decline. LeBron James is also hyped up by the media for a large reason. The media wants to see another Michael Jordan. Since Jordan, Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and now LeBron James have been compared to Michael Jordan as being the GOAT. My point to this is that when, for example, Kobe Bryant was in his prime, he was hyped up to be like Michael Jordan. However, towards the end of his career, he is not as popular anymore and has declined in charts and opinions. Since LeBron James has not declined yet, his popularity has stayed at its peak and it will stay that high until he declines. Bleacher Report ranks LeBron James at number six all time (1) and Encyclopedia Britannica actually says that LeBron James is the greatest player of all time. (2) This will not be the same when LeBron James declines. 1. http://bleacherreport.com... 2. http://www.britannica.com...
LeBron James will never be a top ten player in NBA history

K:Pro's resolution appears to be highly assertive, and it states that LeBron James will *never* be one of the top ten players in NBA history. The problem with this resolution is simply the fact that one could not use even the greatest method of predicting the future since we do not know what will happen later down the road. There is a chance that he could not be one of the top 10 as of now, but there is no reliable future predicting evidence that can support such a resolution, thus, it's negated.
homework should be banned because its bad

"if u dont know what hw means that means that your brain has been DESTROYED by it. idiot. hw is hw. thats the definition. slavery is whatever i call it, because its all up to the person, stop trying to trick the audience, they know the truth(hopefully) and will vote for whos right because thats what the rule is."Actually, the voters normally are meant to vote for who is more convincing, not who is "right.""no,. there is NOOOOOOOOOOO PROOOOOOOOOF. stop lying. hw is evil, i already proved that, so therefore your lying. also einstein didnt do homework. your source is wrong. "You have done nothing to prove that my source is wrong, or that homework is evil. "it does make u go to college because people that do good in school go there. thats what my friend tells me. that is bad because college costs like hundreds of dollars, and u dont get anything out of it. i mean u get no items out of it, thereore, its just entertain ment, like tv, therfore, it should be banned, except tv shouldnt because thats fun."1. I know a friend who "did good in school" and she didn't go to college. 2. College costs well over a couple hundred dollars, at least in the U.S.3. College is meant to educate, not entertain. From the Free Dictionary: a. An institution of higher learning that grants the bachelor's degree in liberal arts or science or both.b. An undergraduate division or school of a university offering courses and granting degrees in a particular field.c. A school, sometimes but not always a university, offering special instruction in professional or technical subjects.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)None of these mention entertainment, I'm sorry to say.Thank you for the debate.
homework should be banned because its bad

if u dont know what hw means that means that your brain has been DESTROYED by it. idiot. hw is hw. thats the definition. slavery is whatever i call it, because its all up to the person, stop trying to trick the audience, they know the truth(hopefully) and will vote for whos right because thats what the rule is. no,. there is NOOOOOOOOOOO PROOOOOOOOOF. stop lying. hw is evil, i already proved that, so therefore your lying. also einstein didnt do homework. your source is wrong. rebuttal to your stupid so called '3 point' it does make u go to college because people that do good in school go there. thats what my friend tells me. that is bad because college costs like hundreds of dollars, and u dont get anything out of it. i mean u get no items out of it, thereore, its just entertain ment, like tv, therfore, it should be banned, except tv shouldnt because thats fun.