BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
dont ask dont tell rule is not fair

The Don't ask Don't tell rule is an not wise nor is it a fair piece of legislation. I am appualled that our leaders cold write something like it. there is no real reason to keep gays out of our military. there is no proof that they cant do the same work that any other man or women can do. it dose not fall in the pursuit of happiness, if a person had to keep who they really are inside they can not truely be happy. it is exactly the fact that they dont want them in the military that is not just. there is no proof or studies that say that homosexuals can not proform the same duties as any other man or women. they shouldnt have to keep their mouthes shut it should be a free subject to talk about. and just becuse they are homosexual dosnt mean that they are staring and druling over every guy there that is soupposedly "PERFECTLY BUILT MEN IN THEIR TWENTIES" that is just a sterotype. and in your words "lets be real" you nor anyone else can say that every homosexuals dream is to spend a year and six months with nothing but perfectly built men in their twenties that is yet another stero type as for the reason that "soldiers should not be thinking of anything except their wives/girlfriends/hookers that are miles and miles away leaving them able to do nothing except hope" that is not a reason it is an opion according to the military they should be focused on protecting their country. there is no one to say that a man in the military homosexual or not will or will not feel sexual tension between peer or subordinates. every one in the military is amle there are also females n the military so talking about sexual tentions apply to all. once again you are forgetting that there are also femaled in the military that can creat sexual tentions. and there is also no one to say that homosexuals or any other people go to the military to look for relation ships or anything along thise lines. it is true that the military deals with scandals already but do they come from homosexuals in the military The Military likes to keep things , If I outrank you do what I say to get the job done. Adding romantic emotions creates and entirely new dimension that the Military Justice department doesn't need to deal with, and its not like the military doesn't deal with enough scandals already
dont ask dont tell rule is not fair

The Don't ask Don't tell rule is an extremly wise and fair piece of legislation and I am proud of our leaders who were able to write it up, I would have just excluded them all but this is a decent compromise in keeping gays out of the military and introducing on privacy, and the pursuit of happiness, and keep many people from crying from inequality. On the basis of homosexuals being excused from the military that statement puts it in too much of a good light. Its not that they are excused, its that they don't want them in the military and they reject them from the military, but to be fair they will let them in there if they keep their mouths shut about it. I personally being in the military would go psycho if I found out that the guy that sleeps in my tent every night is gay. Not becuase I am homophobic, but becuase lets be real. If we are sent to Iraq for example we are trained for 3 months to get prepared for active duty. That is three months with nothing but men. then we get sent to the middle of god knows where for a maximum of a year and six months. a gay person will be with a unit for ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTH WITH NOTHING BUT PERFECTLY BUILT MEN IN THEIR TWENTIES. Thats a gay person's dream and I would not, will not feel comfortable. Not to mention in the navy, oh thats worse, at least in the Army and Marines you have a weapon to shoot him. In the Navy your caste in the middle of the ocean when a gay person comes out the closet . Your stuck with him on a ship full of men for an undetermined amount of time and no prisons or m-16's. The Military is not a democracy, it observes a stricter conduct because it is a fighting force and must be efficient. The Uniform Code Of Military Justice clearly bans the practice for good reason. The soldiers should not be thinking of anything except their wives/girlfriends/hookers that are miles and miles away leaving them able to do nothing except hope and...well communicate with their right/left hand. However gay people in the military is a huge liability and detracts from service, and creates the ability for sexual tension to exist between peers and also between commander and subordinate. The Military likes to keep things , If I outrank you do what I say to get the job done. Adding romantic emotions creates and entirely new dimension that the Military Justice department doesn't need to deal with, and its not like the military doesn't deal with enough scandals already. If people want out of the military and want to say they are gay and get dishonorably discharged forfeiting all of their benefits and tarnishing their name, thats is fine by my I don't want them in there in the first place if they don't want to give an arm and a leg to protect my freedom.
dont ask dont tell rule is not fair

the dont ask dont tell rule is not fair in the military. perople abuse this rule as a way to get aout of their service. homosexual people have a right to be in the military and it is not fair to excuse them just because they are homosexual. just, the dont ask dont tell rule inacted by the military is not fair, homosexuals shouldnt be excused because of their preferences and the dont ask dont tell rule is just used as an excuse and abused by to many.
dont ask dont tell rule is not fair

I find it absolutley shocking that you fail to recongize a behavioral standard in the United States Military. I think you are failing to realize that the military world is completely different from the civilian world. Yes there are whores in the civilian world NOT in the military. The fact is when a person joins the military he waves many of his constitutional rights in order to protect the constitutional rights of others. In place they adhere to a Strict code of Conduct, the Uniform Code of Military Justice/Conduct.Within these set of regulations are embedded the Behavioral and Moral standards that every soldier is required to adhere to. And yes for you liberals out there the Military does impose moral standards and does not leave it to the soldier to define his own standards. Because the private life of a soldier is hard to distinguish or indistinguishable from his career.We in the comforts of our homes cannot start criticizing military leadership from the comforts of an easy chair. We Must make the distinctions between military life and civilian life, and we must accept this distinction as to being necessary for the survival of the constitution. If the military was an extension of civilian life the United States would not be here today.
dont ask dont tell rule is not fair

i was not makeing it to an issue of physcal limitations. i was pointing out that if theres not a physcal limitation as you said would be illogical then there it is no logical reason for the military to reject them. the Uniform of Military Justice dose not "out law" it. i just says that it must be dealt eith ans the sourt martial may direct and this goes for couples of opposite or smae sex. with the advent of gays being in the military openly will close the "window" for harassment and sexual tensions, and false pretexts, because if the DADT rule is abbosioshed thenthey can be open so there will be no false pretexes, sexual tentions, or harassment because the other men/women will not be suspicious or expecting. there will be no quesion or ways to exemplif leadership the "truth" tha men depend upon their compony and above might be true but there is no way to tell that they would look down or not feel comfortale around some one homosexual just because they might be ""looking" at them but you cannot forget that there are also women that also might be "looking" at them. are you saying that they wold just be against homosexuals. as for your example, you never said weither he was homosexual or not thus proving distractions can come from any one or any where relentless of sexual prefernce. and even if there is this hierarchy the ranks are baised on skill and experiance notupone sex or sexual preferance what if a boy dream all his life whas to follow his fathers foot step into the military but he was homosexual. do you honstaly belive liying about your sefl is worth it. would people really want ot be excpted anywhere if the whole of them were not excpted. "they are asked to please confirm to the same behavioral standards that everyone else conforms to" what are you talking about ? as far as im concerned there are no behavioral standard, i mean there are hookers walking around wearing hardly anything and asked by who exactly? the goverment? i think not, and no one else has a right to
dont ask dont tell rule is not fair

You are making the mistake of turning the issue on physical limitations. That is not what this is about, not only is there no scientific proof that homosexuals perform worse then heterosexuals but it is absolutely illogical to believe that there would pose some physical limitations by being gay. You argue that there are females in the military and sexual tensions already exist. That is also true. and The Uniform Code of Military Justice outlaws any sexual or unprofessional conduct between a man and a women in uniform. The fact is many women cry wolf in the military because of sexual harassment. With the Advent of gays in the military that opens up a no window for harassment and sexual tensions, and false pretexts, increase the likelihood that a commanders judgment will come under question , its no the way to exemplify leadership. A truth many people miss is that the moral of the men depend upon their commanders in the squad level, the platoon level, company and above. And their performance in battle depends upon who leads them in battle. Commanders are often re-located to other units when they loose the respect of their men which could happen for many reasons. There was once a commander who boasted about wearing Victoria's Secret bright pink cotton underwear below his uniform everyday. He pride himself in importing them from New York, he was a First Lieutanant in the United States Army. And his subordinates recounted how every time he went into battle the men couldn't get those pink underwear out of their heads it really is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration , when your ability to follow orders is in danger. And that is a big reason why it is do not ask do not tell. Your ability to command troops and work with your peers is hampered by the knowledge if your are homosexual or not. That is just not our standard of leadership in this country . The Military is not civilian life, things are not equal , there is a hierarchy-- something that blatantly goes against the constitution and equality , but it needs to be that way to be effective in defending the constitution. Homosexuals can peruse happiness outside of the military, and if they really want to serve their country god bless them but they are asked to please confirm to the same behavioral standards that everyone else conforms to.
Rap Battle no. 1

I can tell from your crap rap, that you're a narcissist, You should have taken a career as a pharmacist I think you've come to the wrong side of D.D.O, You think you got good rhymes, but I'm a pro, Let me show you how ma rappin"s done, cus really I'm your dad and you're ma son. I'm ready to shock anyone with ma stun pun! You think you know your own mother? Ima tell you how every other and their brother has been her lover EVEN your grandmother! I'm Michael Jacksons look alike, I've rode your mum lika mountain bike. At night I'm slappin her titties left and right, banged her butt with all ma might. From the smell of her muff, I knew I gave it rough, she was even leaking brown stuff? -AND THEN- On the sheet; she started to excrete, I told her no, but she a filthy hoe, half albino and shaped like a potato. She's not all that pleasant, just some fat peasant and her smell is omnipresent. A faulty genome and that additional chromosome put her in a mental home. We've got nut jobs out there looking for the mythical Bigfoot, when little do they realise I'm the mythical Big Dick. Your dick? Pitiful, minimal, invisible, fictional INEXPLICABLE! This is only round one, two more to go. I know I've spoken a lot about that hoe, But she's kinda vital to my flow, she's almost as big as a buffalo, and sucking D is in her manifesto. This is lyrical MADNESS, My flows a miracle unto badness I'm a word smith hero and you're still a blurred myth zero.
Rap Battle no. 1

((Announcer): IT IS THE FIRST RAP BATTLE, AND WE HAVE A GOOD ONE! MC_HARMAN VS. M.C. MADNESS! BEGIN!) MY NAME IS MHARMAN AND I'M HERE TO DESTROY! MY VERSES ARE STRONGER THAN A METAL ALLOY! WHEN I'M ON THE STAGE, I'M AT THE TOP OF MY GAME! I'M THE NEW GUY ON THIS SITE, AND YOU KNOW MY NAME! MHARMAN! WELCOME TO THE NEXT LEVEL! HOT RAPS, MORE HEATED THAN THE DEVIL! WELCOME TO MY TOWN, YOU INSIGNIFICANT BOOB! I'M ONLY HALFWAY THROUGH, AND YOU'RE ALREADY REKT, NOOB! BY TIME I'M DONE WITH YOU, THINGS WILL BE LOOKING BLUE. I WILL CHEW YOU UP AND SPIT YOU OUT, YOU'LL BE WON'DRING WHAT THE DEVIL THAT WAS 'BOUT! YOU CAN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO MY AMAZING FLOWS! YOU'LL BE SITTING THERE LIKE, "WOW, this really blows!" I JUST SHOT A VERBAL ARROW INTO YOUR KNEE! SO, HOW WEAK WILL YOUR FIRST VERSE BE?
The US should not ban guns.

"1987- more than 3,000 men from 15 to 24 years old were murdered with guns in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.)" Hello again,revleader5: So you are talking about the US has a high gun crimes rate because we are allowed to have guns. You know I find it interesting that countries in Europe with the strictest gun control laws have the HIGHEST levels of gun crimes. And I find it interesting that Israel and Sweden, the two countries with the most liberal gun laws have both the Lowest level of gun crime and the LOWEST levels of gun-related accidents. Gee, I wonder why that is. No I don't. I already know the answer. The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no historical or statistical data to back up your assertion that stricter gun laws result in lower levels of gun violence and gun-related accidents. There is ample evidence to prove the exact opposite. There is also evidence to prove that more liberal gun laws result in significant decreases in crime rates across the board. "Getting guns off the street" doesn't make people safer or any other stupidity like that. It makes CRIMINALS safer to commit violent crimes. And it creates a black market in illegal guns that are then owned by people who just want to protect themselves from criminals. If the "war on drugs" is stupid because it creates the very market in illegal drugs that it is supposed to be stopping, then eliminating gun rights is just as stupid. More so, since the right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed, where the right to recreational drugs is not. Thank you.
The US should not ban guns.

1987- more than 3,000 men from 15 to 24 years old were murdered with guns in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.)
The US should not ban guns.

Thank you for the argument, revleader5. I have read some of your posts here, agree with most of them. Here it goes: "Also, if the military turns on us too, there is a United Nations Army always on call, ready to rapidly be deployed for a crisis." I think the 50 cal Barrett high-powered, anti-material, light anti-armor sniper rifle tucked in my gun rack gives me supreme power over the government. Especially if 300 million other people are similarly armed. 300 million people armed against the possibility of the 1.4 million members of the US military being used in a coup. You tell me the odds in that situation. It's not the lone gunman with the Barrett 9 mm. Its the 300 million with hunting rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics, automatics, pistols, army surplus equipment, etc. that protect our liberties. If even 2% of the nation is armed, that means 6 million people able to stand against our standing military force of 1.4 million. You don't see that as an equalizer? Sure the military has better equipment. But as is often said in military circles, quantity creates a quality of its own. 2:1 odds? I'll take it. And I'll take 300:1 odds even more. "That was in the 1940s in a country where only one man ruled. George W Bush has a 535 member congress below him, ready to impeach him." Right, but Bush is not the one that wants to eliminate guns in the hands of civilians or eliminate their rights. I was saying what might happen if the american citizens are not allowed to have guns any more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.You are challenging someone who is older with english as her second language. ;-)
The US should not ban guns.

Playing devil's advocate here. I am only debating you because you are a Mitt Romney supporter and I am a Ron Paul supporter. Also, I like debating people who are a lot older than me so I can see if I really have skills that kills Ron Paul beleives in the right to bear arms. I presume Mitt Romney does too. Here is my argument- About the nazi and Hitlet thing. That was in the 1940s in a country where only one man ruled. George W Bush has a 535 member congress below him, ready to impeach him. Also, if the military turns on us too, there is a United Nations Army always on call, ready to rapidly be deployed for a crisis.
The US should not ban guns.

I believe that the US should NOT ban guns! Do you WANT to give away all your rights and freedoms? Do you enjoy the idea that the government will be able to do anything they want to you and you will never be able to stop them because they are armed and you aren't? That's what happened in Hitler's Nazi Germany. The first thing he did was eliminate guns in the hands of civilians. The second thing he did was eliminate their rights. And they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they weren't armed. If you are so afraid of Bush becoming a dictator (a ridiculous thought, but I've heard people say it), why would you deliberately play into that by calling for disarmament of the civilian population? Why would you give away the power to stop the threat of this person you see as a military tyrant?
Is America truly a "free" country

In my humble opinion, not quite yet. Think about it. Gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states yet. The Supreme Court has really been falling behind on that issue. Abortion is still not wanted around. Why can't a women who is raped get an abortion, it's her body, not yours. Same thing with homosexuals, they didn't do anything to you so you have no right to own their lives. Having rights to these is an issue still, we should have the pursuit of happiness, not being married to who you want because a group of people disagree with it are disgusting. Even though we say we are a free country, we still control other people, that makes no sense. And don't compare it to letting a murderer be free because a homosexual never had hurt anyone so it's not your buissness. It doesn't hurt anyone so why does it matter?
Abortion should be illegal.

Hello, and welcome to my debate. Resolve: Abortion should be illegal. Definitions: Abortion- : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: Illegal- : not according to or authorized by law Sources: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... First argument: Abortion is killing. As it states from the definition, it says abortion is followed by the DEATH of a fetus; that means that it was alive and since it got its life taken away it means it was KILLED. Killing is immoral and since abortion is legal, it is legalizing killing innocent lifes. Second Arguement: The parent could choose something else for that life , that could be benefitial for the parent(s) as well for the future child. One thing they could do is, place the child or baby for adoption. There are many couples out there looking for a child to take care of; it would benefit the parents, the child, and a couple out there looking to adopt a child.
Going to the gym ruins your education

Not true. Some people prefer physical careers over intellectual ones. Some folks would rather make a living off of manual careers than ones in which you sit at a desk all day. Your argument about taking a risk-free career path is silly; there is an equal need for physical and intellectual jobs. Society needs both those that are strong enough for manual jobs and those that are smart enough to work in an office. You take risks in anything. And if people are aware of the risks, they can decide for themselves what they want to do in life. If they are happier doing things that require strength, let them be happy. If they are happier doing things that require intelligence, let them be happy. And, besides, if going to the gym ruins our chances at succeeding in life, why do schools offer Physical Education as a class? Your argument doesn't make much sense to me. But, it's all in the hands of the voters now. Let the best debater win.
Going to the gym ruins your education

Choosing Gym over School: So imagine a teenage boy who likes to go to the gym. He dedicates his life to weight lifting and football, and doesn't give a damn about school. What happens if noone notices his talent? When you train too hard, you can risk a injury that can change your whole career. If he had taken the education given to him, he would not have this kind of a problem; Ending his career and life because of an injury. What happens then to him? He will most likely end up in the streets, with no education. No employer wants to employ an utter rubbish boy who has no knowledge. With your arguement, you are basically saying to take a risk, but what happens if you fail? Choosing School over Gym: You would be more successful, and you aren't taking a risk. You are studying to become something, for example an MBA. No risks, just reality. You have almost secured a job when you educate to something. Employers would want you, and this is the easiest way to become rich. Riskfree!
Going to the gym ruins your education

I am glad to be debating with you. Let me start off by stating that your argument is based on stereotype and assumption. I am going to use my favorite athlete - Roger Federer - as an example. He played a wide range of sports as a child, but decided to focus exclusively on tennis at the age of 14. By this time, he was "fully immersed in the game - playing 2-3 tournaments a month, and practicing up to 6 hours a week, along with 3 hours of conditioning." Remember, he was still enrolled in school at this time. However, two years later, he dropped out of school to pursue his dreams of becoming a tennis pro. After much hard work and dedication, Roger still manages to keep a high record in his early 30's, and has hit the number one spot several times. He has made nearly $67 million off of prize money and other such rewards. I would not say that going to the gym made him unsuccessful - it made him quite the opposite. And it is the same for many other athletes as well.