BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents

"A civil uprising and a civil war are two different things. Gandhi rebuked Indians that used violence to advocate freedom from the British. He understood that there should be no bloodshed for peace and freedom. Civil wars are not necessary at all." Yet blood was still spilled upon the ground. Once the people had seen this, they retaliated. Not with weapons, because they would have lost that fight, but rather through politics. But it is because blood poured out onto the ground that they defended their freedom with more ferocity than would have otherwise. Also, the circumstances are different. In that we had an actual civil war where the government split. In India, it was people against government. But they are still parallel situations showing that some form of war must occur. For India, it was peaceful because of the circumstances. In America, the circumstances only showed all out war. "Slavery would have been eliminated in the few short years because of new inventions in slave industries. You are so concerned with the long term. In the long term, the states would have been better off without a civil war." This is where our views differ the most. Slavery would not have been abolished otherwise. Freedom is a fickle fiend and can only be procured when fought for. Without the civil war, slavery would still exist today because the southern plantation owners and slave owners made it known that they were going to continue "breeding" slaves for years to come. Agriculture was and still primarily is how the south operates today. It was because of the demand for labor that technological innovations came about. After the slaves had been free. It would not have been just for Abraham Lincoln to allow southern states to secede from the union to continue accommodating slavery and violating universal human rights. Martin Luther King Junior once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Abe should not and could not have allowed this injustice to happen any longer. You go on to conceded that the recession was short term. However you did not talk on the long term which I have proven time and time again was an excellent reward. In the long term, Abe's actions were just and wise. The states were only close to the people that were property and slave owners. The slaves themselves were treated horribly. Slavery should have been repudiated years before it ever began. Lincoln made bold and just actions to free them so that the black community of today's world could also be free. I evaluate Lincoln by his actions and have deemed him and his actions moral and just. "Parents do this all the time with kids. They let them make the wrong decision, so that it is not made again. " This has and will never work for spoiled children. Allowing a child to take and beat his peers without ramifications justifies his actions making him even more mischievous when he has grown. I too hope that we have come to a better understanding. I will still state that Honest Abe was just in what he did. Thanks! - Matt
automatic bathrooms do more harm than good

Thanks for the acceptance! Toilets and sinks: My opponent makes an argument that when you flush the toilet, you are gaining countless germs. While this is true, let me explain how this doesn't matter. In automatic toilet situation we are still touching the following. 1. The toilet paper role (not to mention your going to be sticking your fingers and a wad of paper up your you know where! ) 2. The door handle on the way out of the bathroom still. 3. The door handle on the way out. So while you touch a couple more objects than you normally would have to, it basically becomes irrelevant anyway. In both situations you still have to wash your hands before leaving, so you leave the bathroom clean as you would have if you were to have full on touched a persons defacation. However, automatic bathrooms themselves, are a deterrent to people washing their hands in the first place. If someone is in a hurry, notices they have to deal with the annoying sink that's going to give them an ounce of water before shutting off, they might just more easily say "screw this! " and head out the bathroom before even washing their hands. Paper Towel Dispenser: Concerning the paper towel dispenser not putting much thought into how much towelage they ration you; you would almost think it has a mind of its own they way they give you literally no towels when dispensing. Sometimes reading the motion doesn't go through easily at all. Meanwhile your hands are dripping wet all over the floor, causing a potential slip and fall hazard. You desperately want to dry your hands, but the dang machine won't give. At this point you wouldn't even mind touching a wet handle to get you out of this awkward situation, as an impatient line accrues behind you, all with hands just as wet as yours. You ration with yourself "It couldn't be that bad to touch the handle, right? I mean the person before me washed his hands too! ". But the option still isn't available. Desperately, you try to manually pull the towel out of the dispenser after a tad bit is sticking out. It rips, and your now saying to yourself "Screw this, I'll use my pants" Resulting in you using a less sanitary, and more redudant hand drying method. I would have argue your statement of it not being so difficult, not always being true. Sometimes yes, but bathrooms that are used more frequently than others, tend to have the equipment in them worn down, making these motion detectors harder to read. Should bathrooms invest the money into replacing all these expensive equipment costs, or should they just make it simple, and bring back all the manual stuff? :)
automatic bathrooms do more harm than good

Okay. Let me just clarify that I get annoyed at these "automatics" often enough. Altogether though, I think that they are definitely worth it in the long run. Toilets: Automatically flushing toilets do more than simply prevent water wastage. Picture this: A filthy stranger has just finished defecating. He/she stands up, (this is NOT an automatic toilet), and reaches over with his/her dripping hand. He/she wraps his/her hand, (which by now is awash with bacteria), around the handle of the toilet, activating the flush. A mere ten minutes later, an unsuspecting, ordinary person saunters into the public bathroom. That person is you. You peer into one of the stalls. The stall happens to be the one which the filthy stranger has recently exited. "Gosh, am I glad this bathroom isn't one of those "automatic" ones," you say with relief. You complete your duty and reach over to flush the toilet. Countless invisible germs transfer themselves from the handle to your very own hand. Sinks: (same scenario) You head over to the sink to attempt to rinse off those germs which you know nothing about. You press the very button which the filthy stranger had pressed to get the water going. "Boy, am I glad this sink is so easy to turn on," you grin at the uninterested stranger washing his hands in the sink next to you. The uninterested stranger nods warily and quickly leaves the bathroom. You never see him again. (Proving any embarrassment you said that you experience due to automatic bathrooms, ridiculous.) Meanwhile the water has turned off. You jam your hand against the button a dozen times. (Germs, germs, germs!) Paper towel dispensers: (not same scenario) To quote your first annoyance about paper towel dispensers, "you have wet hands, and YOUR (it's supposed to be YOU'RE) desperate to get them dry." The point of automatic paper towel dispensers is that you OBVIOUSLY have wet hands, that is why you do not want to be bothered to touch a (probably already wet) handle causing it to become even more wet. You would want to be able to wave your dripping hand, without needing to touch anything, and receive your paper towels. In addition, if you do not receive the amount of paper towel sufficient to dry your hands, simply wave your hand again. (It isn't that difficult.) I have also never heard of a dispenser refusing to provide more paper towels because you have already received your ration. I didn't know those dispensers put that much thought into it. I happen to agree with you concerning hand dryers and cost, but that is not enough to outweigh the benefits of automatic bathrooms.
Normal passengers should not be forced to subsidise passengers of size

As I am well over six foot tall, many airlines recognise my need for extra legroom by giving me a free upgrade from coach / economy class to business / first class. Of course, this means that the airlines cannot sell this premium seat to another passenger and this loss of revenue is reflected in higher fares for everybody else, but it's only right and proper that shorter passengers should subsidise my travel. No, just a moment, I'm sorry – I was confusing tall people with grossly overweight people – if I need extra space I have to pay for it, it's the obese that get more space for free. You see, although some of the more enlightened carriers, such as Southwest Airlines, now charge "customers who encroach upon any part of the neighboring seat" (1), most airlines still discriminate against taller passengers by forcing them to pay for what they give fat passengers free, that is: more room to spread out. While I understand that it is very difficult for the obese to slim down by eating less and doing more exercise, and it is very easy for tall people like me to chop our legs off, I still feel this is insufficient justification for pandering to the demands of the grossly overweight while squeezing taller people until their pips squeak and that normal passengers should not be forced to subsidise passengers of size. Thank you. (1) http://www.southwest.com...
Restaurants should implement an anti-obesity code of conduct

What you suggest would not help the obese. It would simply embarrass a now huge (no pun intended) percentage of the public. They would just avoid the restaurants that had such a policy. Nobody likes being singled out; nobody likes to be publicly embarrassed, and nobody would comply. Not the restaurant owners; they would lose business in an industry where only 5% of the businesses that open stay open. Not the customers; who wants to dine at a place that minds their business for them, No one wants to dine at a place that embarrasses them. And no one wants to be told what to do in a country where (at least for now) one has the freedom of choice to do what he wants with his/her body.
Restaurants should implement an anti-obesity code of conduct

I think we agree that obesity is a huge problem. That's why the issue must be addressed and a voluntary code of conduct for restaurants could go a long way to reduce the prevalence of obesity in society. Let me be clear, however, there was never any suggestion of government involvement and the code of conduct would not interfere with anybody's freedom of choice: obese customers willing to be humiliated in return for the pleasure of shovelling fatty food down their bloated necks in wholesale quantities will still be free to dine in restaurants that have adopted the code of conduct, provided they aren't too fat to fit through the door, of course! Thank you.
Restaurants should implement an anti-obesity code of conduct

Obesity is the biggest health problem facing society today and clearly restaurants that serve obese customers unhealthy food and drink should behave more responsibly. Whilst I realise that a ban on serving obese customers would be unworkable and possibly a breach of human rights, a voluntary code of conduct should be introduced whereby obese customers are discouraged from going to restaurants to gorge on fattening food and drink. Here are some recommendations for the code of conduct: * Restaurants should fit narrower doorways to stop the most obese customers from getting in; * Restaurants should install weight sensitive welcome mats that make "Oink! Oink! Squeal! Squeal!" noises when an obese customer enters; * Restaurants should introduce chairs designed to collapse under the heavy weight of grossly overweight customers; * Restaurants to serve orders of extra large portions of fatty food in animal troughs, and orders of extra large drinks in buckets. Whilst there would be no obligation to implement these measures the national governing body of the catering industry could require these measures to be introduced as a condition of membership and restaurant reviewers could name and shame those restaurants that continue to behave irresponsibly by ignoring the code of conduct. Thank you.
immigration

I am tired your false accusations. I never said about Americans losing jobs. You have a weak argument and you are trying to change the words I say. Also it is unrealistic to say all the illegal immigrants just got up and left in one day. That would never happen, and would be an impossible feat. Also your argument: "a large amount of illegal immigrant come here and then have children. these children are natural citizens. tell me: would you only deport the parents, leaving the children to be orphans, or would you deport the children too, who never broke any laws, are natural citizens, and who you would be putting them in a state of poverty? this is only one of many examples of the various complexities of a project of this magnitude and impact" First of all, I don't think that should be a law. I don't think if you are born in the US or any of its territories you should automatically become a US citizen. It should be if one or more of your parents are US citizens you become one. That would eliminate that problem right off the bat. But since that is not the case it should be the parents decision. It should be the parents decision on whether or not they stay or go with them.
immigration

If all of the illegal immigrant that make up 5% of the american population were gone tomorrow, accordingly about 5% of jobs would be left empty tomorrow. all of these niches would be UNFULFILLED. it is important that we not just send them all away. in fact, you admit this yourself by claiming that there is a problem because they take a lot of Jose from americans. on subject: you back up your argument by saying "the illegal immigrant our taking jobs from our impoverished that would love the job." anytime that anyone ever takes a job, they are destroying the hypothetical opportunity for another to have that job. these immigrants came here for reason. they came hereto make money because where they came from they were surrounded by poverty. they deserve those jobs, just as much as the next impoverished guy. most illegal immigrants are certainly in poverty. a problem with your solution that I would like to throw out now, is this: a large amount of illegal immigrant come here and then have children. these children are natural citizens. tell me: would you only deport the parents, leaving the children to be orphans, or would you deport the children too, who never broke any laws, are natural citizens, and who you would be putting them in a state of poverty? this is only one of many examples of the various complexities of a project of this magnitude and impact
immigration

First off, I don't care if you are Hispanic or German. You telling me that you are hispanic boy, really doesn't affect mine or your argument. Second off, "You should not judge a book from its cover. That mean that you should not treat immigrate bad because you don't like people to talk aout your culture." I didn't judge you in anyway. Also I didn't talk bad about any culture. Also I know the Native Americans are the only true natives to this country, but it is the US Government land now. Thirdly, rapists and illegal immigrants are in the same boat. They both committed a crime. What isn't the same there. I will agree there are differences but, there are similarities of the two. My fourth and final point is it doesn't matter is illegal immigrants want better lives. We all want to better our lives in one way or another, but you need to respect the laws currently put in place. Think about if we opened our borders, and tons of people poured in our country. There would be economic destruction. Our country is already in huge debt, we can't support that onslaught of people coming into our country.
immigration

For your information I am a hispanic boy who my parent are from el salvador and mexico. You should not judge a book from its cover. That mean that you should not treat immigrate bad because you don't like people to talk aout your culture. I am a proud HISPANIC BOY!!!!!!!! The only people that are not immagrate are the native americans in this country. Rapists and illegal immigrants are not the same. Illegal immigratts just want to work in this country and have a better life. Rapist are nasty people you break the law and rape little boys,or girls.
immigration

I think you are totally wrong on this issue. 1) I agree not all illegal immigrants are rapists or murderers. Most are somewhat innocent people who want to live in a country better for them, and I can sympathize with that, but rapists and illegal immigrants have one thing in common. What they have in common is that they both broke the law. Regardless of one may be more severe or cruel then the other they both broke the law, and need to be punished for it. 2) We should not open our borders to Central and South America. This cause loads of problems. The first problem is National Security. If we open our borders anyone may enter, and this can cause more terrorists to enter our country. We need to keep our borders secured to keep our citizens safe. Also I hardly consider Central and South America our brothers and sisters. Maybe long lost and forgotten 3rd cousin.... 3) Also it doesn't matter that they are hard workers, I don't see how that helps your argument. Also they days our founding fathers came and founded this land, and present day are two totally different ideas.
Dunsparce is boss

Pro forfeited so I cannot rebut him.http://www.neoseeker.com... say how come there is so much love of the bland pokemon, Dunspace. Dunsparce isn't very special and doesn't stand out according to http://pokemondb.net.... Do why are people interested in a boring, plain, useless pokemon, Dunsparce. I mean seriousl, other pokemon are way better. Dunsparce is easy to catch and has less moves than a rock.Continued previous arguments.
Dunsparce is boss

Dunsparse is a low level Pokémon with hardly any moves that all have very low criticism. http://pokemondb.net... provides evidence of all the Pokémon and Dunsparse only comes in at number 205 out of 721. So how could Dunsparse be boss is it isn't even in the top 60%? http://pokemondb.net... shows that Dunsparse doesn't have a very high health level and isn't very skilled.Wouldn't you prefer an awesome Pokémon that would thrash any other?
Universal healthcare

well i guess that you can check out the link in my case this will take you to a page and you can check out the 18 cons and look at the paragraphs number. They will give you examples. i can give you an example for each right now: For the patient flexibilty one:The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of. For the one about FRee health care not being free: pretty self explanitory For the one about patients waiting:Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America For the one about painful transistions:A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. Which means bye bye health insurance Where is your evidence of Uh being good???
Universal healthcare

I will gladly take this debte. Universal health care is bad and should be rejected fro the following 5 reasons. Messerli, Joe. http://www.balancedpolitics.org... 1)Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. 2)Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. patients would have to wait long peeriods of time for there surgery 3)Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. 4)A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. 5)Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment opponets case Where are your facts and opinions?????? I should win because i gave facts my opponet didn't!
The flood in the Christian Religion is a global flood and not a local flood.

I accept.In order to avoid talking at cross-purposes I'd appreciate it if my opponent could tell me the following in Round 2:(1) Which translation of the Bible he prefers to use for this debate. I'm good for anything in English and easily available online.(2) What date he prefers for the flood. 2348 BC is popular but not universally accepted.(3) The duration of the flood. The deluge lasts 40 days and 40 nights but then the water hangs out for 150 to 220 days depending on the interpretation.(4) The depth of the flood. The Bible has it covering the tops of the mountains. Does this just cover Mt. Ararat (5137 m) or are you good with topping up Everest (8516 m) as well?These are not points that I intend to contest unless my opponent proposes something truly absurd like a two inch deep flood. They are merely setting for the rest of the discussion.
The flood in the Christian Religion is a global flood and not a local flood.

I am entirely glad that someone had accepted to debate me. However, there is a slight amount of confusion concerning your interpretation of the topic. What we are debating is, "The flood in the Christian Religion is a global flood and not a local flood." In your text you chose to take an evolutionary perspective to this. Although I do not condemn you, you did stray from the topic. You debated whether or not the flood actually occurred. As for your effort in your text, I'm sorry but it doesn't count. Thankfully we have two more round to make up for this. I hope you decide to continue debating me.
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

I'm not arguing the morality or ethics of incest, I'm arguing the legality of aborting children conceived in incest. 75% is the highest data I've found (On Wikipedia with no valid source, no less). Numbers over %10 being only in cases of siblings and parent/child relations. One must keep in mind that the chances of any child having a defect is around 2% while genetically incompatible, unrelated parents have even higher chances of defects.
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

Finding any reputable data from this century to back up either argument is nearly impossible listing the statistical chances of a child born in first generation incest having a serious genetic defect range from no significant difference from non-incest children to 75% chances. The majority of studies agree that more distant relations decrease the chances of serious birth defects with first cousin relations and further having negligibly higher chances of defects than a child born to an unrelated couple. Aborting children based on potential defects is a slippery slope, too. If incest children are to be aborted, would any and all children expected to be born with defects be aborted? Would any genetically incompatible parents be allowed to abort? Every argument both for and against abortions in general can be applied to children conceived in incest and therefore shouldn't be handled differently.