BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fatness !

Although the culture surrounding models and 'looks' in the media is a cancer that causes more suffering than we first think - I don't believe 'fat' people should be portrayed as attractive and normal in the media. I'm not cruel or heartless, but a tiny degree of stigmatization (which exists without help from the media) is not entirely a bad thing, for 'fat' is not desirable, not attractive, indeed it suggests a personality trait that is lazy and/or greedy and/or ignorant. This does not mean that I think more bad of fat people than I do anyone else with a problem, indeed as a smoker how could I? But I fear that there is a movement amongst some people, to treat being fat like being gay or being a Goth or emo or some other subculture. I think that we must not forget (in the hype of political correctness) that being fat is bad, undesirable, and suggests negative aspects about personality. It certainly should not be encouraged to make fat attractive or even acceptable, it should be treat like a disease and a problem like drug addiction and most certainly not encouraged !
Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.

Round two argumentsOutlineI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.II. Religion tends to be partisanIII. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.IV. SourcesI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.If your a Christian, you probably disagree with Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and at least one branch of Christianity, Mormon, Catholic, and/or Protestant. The reverse is also true, if your a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew you probably don't want Christians to get a tax break. "the Internal Revenue Service granted tax exemptions to Scientology organizations again in 1993." [0]We can't just give tax exempt status to the religion we see as the best religion. We must give the exemption to all or none. II. Religion tends to be partisanI will tell a brief personal testimony about going to church. I found the church to have overt conservative partisan bias. Misogynist remarks were made by the leader. "God loves woman, but he loves men more." source church leaderThe same goes with a strong stance against abortion and socialism. I've found that I am hardly alone. "Think about the sets of issues that are often at the core of the identity of the working-class folks who elected Trump: religion, personal liberty's relationship with government, gender, marriage, sexuality, prenatal life and gun rights." [1] A major part of Donald Trump victory in November 2016 was due to Christianity. More and more the conservative party has aligned itself with Christianity and Christianity with the conservative party. Note, other religions tend to sway towards conservative values by preaching traditional gender roles."They are conservative, believe in hard work, family, the military and cops, and they know that abortion and socialism are evil, that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that Donald J. Trump will be good for America.They are part of a growing movement in rural America that immerses many young people in a culture — not just conservative news outlets but also home and church environments — that emphasizes contemporary conservative values. It views liberals as loathsome, misinformed and weak, even dangerous." [2]Churches are effectively breeding grounds for conservative values. Since it is common knowledge that most of the USA is Christian it is time for liberals to take a stand. Time to demand an even playing field by removing religious institutions' tax exempt status. III. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.The basic theory of economics is that resources are finite. Religious institutions literally often take prime real estate. Prime real estate without paying the full price. This means the poor and middle class have to take up the slack. "The property taxes they aren’t paying have to be drawn from business owners and private citizens — in a real sense, you and I are subsidizing Mormon temples, Muslims mosques, Methodist churches." [3]IV. Sources0. http://www.snopes.com...1. https://www.adn.com...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. http://time.com...
Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.

I will contend against tax exemptions for religious institutions.My opponent will contend for tax exemptions for religious institutions. Burden of proof will be equally shared.Definitions will be common definitions unless otherwise expressed and agreed upon.StructureRound one acceptance and definitionsRound two arguments, don't respond to your opponent's arguments yet.Round three rebuttals respond directly to your opponent's round two.Round four defense respond directly to your opponent's round three.Thanks in advance for accepting.
George Patton was a Greater General than Bernard Law Montgomery

Greetings all, The premise of this debate is to find who was the greater military commander - the famed American General Patton, or the great English Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery. My opponent bears the burden of the proof, but I will put forth a few points as to why Patton isn't such a great commander, and then expound further in the consecutive rounds. Thanks for the debate, have fun, and good luck. Enjoy perusing the debate, all readers. 1. Patton was contemptible with his soldiers and fellow generals, and caused strife among Allied High Command. 2. Patton didn't believe in a grande alliance. 3. Patton was disloyal to his wife and became a blatant womanizer. In fact, it almost appears that he had intercourse with his own niece, a certain Jean Gordon. 4. Patton was reckless and seemed to believe that the war was designed for his own further gains and glory (Walker incident, for example.) 5. Patton was a vulgar man who luxuriated and cared little for his soldiers. (A few incidences include slapping and preferring petrol to food rations). 6. Patton "talked too much" - he couldn't keep certain secrets, and thence was not privy to much of the strategical developments in High Command. 7. Patton wasn't that great of a soldier and directly disobeyed orders. That's probably enough for now. I will put further points forth in later rounds. Cheers!
Twitter Equals= Better Than facebook

(Why Twitter Will Live And Facebook Will Die/ http://www.forbes.com... ) Plus, if you like to write more than the 140 character limit on Twitter, you can do so by creating your own blog on Blogger, and shorten that link with Twitter's Bitly url shortener: https://bitly.com... or, Google's URL shortener: https://goo.gl... , copy and paste the URL link to your Tweet and Tweet with an image attached if you want. You can also attach images and add emoji s on your images before sending out with the Twitter app. You can also add GIF(s), polls, and locations. The problem with Facebook is that I don't trust the workers there. I don't trust them because after sometime, weeks, months, years etc., they'll ask you to submit a photo of your i.d. or they will disable your account if you don't until you do. To me that is not fair, as you may already know that so many Facebook users identify themselves with aliases. So Facebook is not doing a good job. It almost feels as if they target anyone they disagree with on the things they post by requiring a photo i.d. to prove thier identity. And the catch here is that they know so many wise people will not submit their private and personal information, so then in that way they can cleverly disable your account. They can also sell your identity to companies behind your back by hiring someone to hack them and then making it seem that way. And one day if and when Facebook does get hacked, guess what that will mean for Facebook users. I am not concern with the scores as you are because in due time Facebook will die, what I am concern with is the PRIVACY to my identity. Some people just don't want to be found and Facebook shows no respect for that, but Twitter does. https://gendersweb.blogspot.com...
Twitter Equals= Better Than facebook

Facebook is better than Twitter in a multitude of ways. The mere principle of Facebook outweighs that of Twitter. The length duration cut for twitter (140 characters), while great for little blurbs of information or status updates, is hardly practical for the world we live in now, where people are spending more time than ever on their cellular devices. According to Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Youseff Squali, he points out that people have actually spent only 15% of the time they spend on Facebook on Twitter. He also notes that the average Facebook user spends 846.1 minutes on Facebook, compared to a mere 124.6 minutes on Twitter. He states that "Unless this gap narrows, this disparity in engagement is likely to favor Facebook with brand advertisers and limit Twitter's ability to fully monetize its user base," he wrote. Facebook is also much more versatile and a much better website in general than Twitter. It's more flexible, as you can upload pictures, videos, games and apps to your profile or even embed videos from Youtube or post calendar events while on the other hands, Twitter only allows for text in small numbers. Facebook's profit and leadership has also been extremely stable, led by Mark Zuckerberg, who still runs the country he has founded. On the other hand, the founders of Twitter own 12%, 4.9%, and 1.6% of Twitter shares, while Zuckerberg owns 57% of Class B voting shares, keeping control of the company he created. Current Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, owning 1.6% of stock, has even been described as "an 'un-CEO' who's more focused on user growth than revenue." The Market Cap of Facebook, as of Jan 28, 2014, has been 132.58 bn, compared to Twitter's 33.05 bn. The price/earnings ratio of Facebook has also been drastically different, as Facebook has been profiting at 54.36, while Twitter is making a loss at -134.67. In response to your initial argument, Facebook actually requests users to cover up sensitive information like a liscense or passport number and deleting the photo shortly after, securing your privacy. Facebook also states on its website that by submitting this document, you'll appear more frequently in the people to follow list, and will be able to connect with friends and colleagues much more easily than Twitter.
Do the illuminate know da wae

The group commonly referred to as the illuminati (the people who really do pull the strings of world wide politics are more commonly known as the Rothschild Zionists. They control the worlds wealth and what they know about the future is that they will get wealthier. They will try to keep the world is a state of chaos and loan their wealth to all sides of the conflicts in order to create greater wealth. If you can get in you will have all of the wealth and power of the world at your finger tips but it is a very exclusive club. The have a direction but I would argue that they don't know the way to anywhere.
which is better vampires or werewolves

This is true however werewolves have no special abilities except for being able to turn into a wolf one night in about a month. They are basically human apart from one night , with no powers or ways to protect themselves. It would be easy to kill a werewolf on any day except when they have turned which only makes it a little harder but vampires have super hearing and speed making it much harder to sneak up and kill one. Vampires can defend themselves a lot better than any werewolf. On the diet note, it is true that vampires only drink blood but this is because they are DEAD. Werewolves can eat whatever they want however they do lose control of themselves once turned. REALLY what is the point of having supernatural abilities if you can not control them!! At least vampires can learn to control their blood lust to the point where they do not have to kill when they feed
which is better vampires or werewolves

1)Diet- Vampires drink blood that's all. If your a werewolf most of the time they are human so can eat anything not just blood. 2)Werewolves are not immortal- This may sound good to live forever but you would get bored especially if you cant go outside. 3) Werewolves cant be killed by cheap everyday items.-In the classic mythology, werewolves were killed by silver bullets or sometimes a silver sword. Do you know how much silver costs? Vampires, on the other hand, are vulnerable to sunlight, crosses, holy water, wooden stakes, and garlic. GARLIC! You aren"t really a dangerous creature of the night if one of your weaknesses is the main ingredient in Prego.(Smosh)
which is better vampires or werewolves

I believe vampires are deffently the best because they are creatures of the night and are able to use their powers painlessly at any time however werewolves only turn on a full moon and when they do turn it is painful and they can not control their selfs whilst in wolf form, which normally ends up with them going on a killing spree. Vampires on the other hand can learn to control themselves against the thirst for blood.
If Jesus had not sacrificed Himself

If one had curiosity enough to investigate the writings of most religious writers concerning this subject, They would find that not only would Chrisianity not exist, But most hospitals and other benevolent institutions would not either. All peoples would be living under a much more brutal, Deceitful and dishonest government that they presently may have. Because the Spiritual light of the New Testament that might shine dimly in some parts of the world. . . . Still is shining. I think not. . . . . . . . . . If Jesus had not sacrificed Himself. . . . . . . . This entire universe would not exist. God cannot tolerate sin. Since the centerpiece of creation became corrupted by this. God would not have had no other alternative but to destroy the entirety. Many ask that if God had all foreknowledge, Why would He have implemented the creation in the first place? God is not limited by His foreknowledge because He also possesses the ability to choose not to know. The scriptures teach that God is not only able to forgive His spiritual children. . . . . He possesses the ability to no longer remember their sins: 'I, Even I, Am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, And will not remember thy sins. ' (Isaiah 43:25) This is what would have occurred had Jesus not made the decision to try to give whoever of mankind the opportunity to become what was originally intended by the creation, To become His child: 'But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, And the elements shall melt with fervent heat, The earth also and the works therein shall be burned up. ' (2 Peter 3:10) '
If Jesus had not sacrificed Himself

Typical so-called christian (because there's no such a thing as being a christian). Wow. Just like nearly 100% of those who claim themselves to be so-called christians, They simply cannot do one thing. What is that one thing you ask with your belly button flint? You are totally 100% incapable of taking YOUR god, Jesus (in which for both you cannot even has proved has ever existed and no one can) and bible at its word.
If Jesus had not sacrificed Himself

I will not respond to garbage so take it elsewhere. You do not yet possess the maturity to engage in a formal public DEBATE such as this so my advice to you is refrain from this type of forum for about 5 years. Your posts appear to possibly fit in on a social media geared for adolescents. We have ample evidence that Jesus existed in the 1st century. We have the writings of His true enemies, The Jewish leaders. We also have His burial shroud that the very early Christians venerated. I will not DEBATE these topics with someone as immature as yourself however.
Humans are the most intelligent animals on Earth.

I will be stating my argument that humans are not the most intelligent creatures on earth. Yes, Humans may be the most intelligent known creatures on earth. Again I state that we are known. We can not for sure say we are the absolute smartest creature on earth. There is a demand for proof that we are the smartest beings on this planet. If we had, without a doubt; not only explored but also found every being on earth we could say we are the smartest if that be the case. There is the lurking of the deep that is yet to be explored. There are new creatures being found all the time. Maybe already known creature are for more intelligent in ways we can't understand. Maybe creatures have intelligence we just don't know how to unlock. that being said I do not believe humans are the most intelligent animals on earth.
Humans are the most intelligent animals on Earth.

This debate will be about whether humans are more intelligent than other animal species on Earth. I will be arguing for this, my opponent will argue against it (i.e. humans are not the most intelligent).Structure:Round 1 is acceptance.Round 2 is opening arguments.Round 3 is rebuttals. No new arguments.Round 4 is further rebuttals with new and/or revised arguments.Round 5 is final arguments and closing statements.Rules:1. Con MUST argue that humans are NOT the most intelligent.2. No religious or supernatural arguments, i.e. no references to things not proven to exist, including cryptids and aliens.3. Be civil.4. Provide sources (wikipedia allowed but discouraged)5. Bonus points to anyone who presents all of their arguments in limerick.Thanks in advance to my opponent.
Gun control

I'm pretty new to politics, and I was hoping for a friendly debate Here's my argument: The idea is straightfoward and simple, take away guns and violence will decrease. However, research has shown that gun control allows further violence and destruction upon a nation. The fact that more than 99% of all LEGAL US gun owners have not used their registered weapon for crime show that you are in fact disarming law abiding citizens, potentially putting them in danger of criminals and murderers. Gun laws in cities and states show that. For example, Chicago is the most dangerous city in the nation and one of the most violent in the world, while the state of vermont, which has relatively low gun laws, is one the most safe places in the US. Also, if you look at countries, you will also see that countries such as switzerland have very low crime rates, while countries such as Mexico have some of the highest crime rates.
Interracial marriage is ok!

1. Well I understand all that sir and I actually agree with you but let's stick to the topic Of Interracial marriage in our society. In a lot of well populated areas like south Florida, New York City, LA etc. it is getting more popular and accepted. But just because the media accepts it doesn't mean that the rest of America has accepted it. Just because the heavy populated areas have accepted it doesn't mean that rural parts of Indiana and Kentucky have accepted it. If it was accepted that 1st Cheerios commercial with the Biracial little would not have had to disable the comment section of their YouTube video. 2.You find a lot older parents will claim and say, "Oh I see nothing wrong with it!" But you ask them well would you let your children do it and literally WWIII just broke out and they say never will they let their child do it. You say that's crazy but large percentage of people believe like that. 3. Just because the interracial couple statistics are rising doesn't mean the approval statistics are rising. If it is being accepted more then why don't you see more commercials like that one?
Interracial marriage is ok!

It has been getting accepted in society for the last years more and more, but just because of that it doesn't mean that it's okay. It's more of a matter of personal election. But think about it this way.. My teacher said that you know if a decision is correct if you can wake up in the morning and say that it was right (what you did). Even so it depends on who you are. If you are a Christian you better not be a faggot, cause god said at the beginning he created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Not Eve and Lauren. God was really specific in how people should have their babies. Can a guy and a guy have babies? No. Leviticus 18:22 does not stutter when it says "you shall not lie with a man; as with a woman. It is abomination." God doesn't like it, so should we? God hates the sin but not the sinner I know, but you think someone is gonna have the favor of god, if god knows that they can control their sexual orientation but chose not to? NO! Say if someone is an atheist, they still should not be gay cause it's still nasty. It's not even safe for the next generations, because then they have the example of mental ill people. They do not have the right state of mind if someone is gay. They should seek therapy since obviously someone was wrong with their childhood or prime or something.
Interracial marriage is ok!

In some parts of the US this a hot topic. What is wrong with interracial relationships? I have heard every argument there is on why it is wrong and want to hear more. So if you you are brave enough to argue your opinion go ahead and do so. I am for it and want to debate this issue, I have been debating this issue constantly for the past 10 years. A lot of people may say well that's not an issue anymore but unfortunately you are wrong, it is. Case and point, the Cheerios commercial with the biracial little girl.
Evolution is valid.

Before I present my arguments to support the proposition I'd like to clarify the semantics of the debate. Definitions provided by the Oxford Dictionary: evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. [1] valid: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent [2] Based on these definitions, as long as I provide a sound and logical argument for evolution throughout the course of human history, then Con cannot win without refuting logistical errors within my explanation. I'd like to begin by making 4 arguments. Con will refute in round 2 and present his own arguments. Argument 1: Darwin documented traces of evolution based on solid empirical evidence that he collected while on the HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands. He noted that the characteristics of birds found on one island of the island chain differed slightly from the characteristics found on the birds of the other islands. He inferred that the reason for this was that the birds were raised in different environments and that over an extended duration of time were able to adapt to their designated environments by developing key anatomical features that allowed them to survive and reproduce effectively. His findings are now widely accepted by modern scientists and evolutionists and are only disputed by theologians or other scientifically unsubstantiated religions. [3] Please note that the proposition states that as long as I provide a logically sound defense for evolution, I serve my purpose for the debate. Argument 2: There is evidence for past human-like ancestors before the Homo Sapien. There are cave paintings and visible inscriptions that our past ancestors have left behind. There are detailed depictions of past human life, human anatomy and human cultural and historical practices. These can be found in manuscripts and early stone tablets that have been left behind when our past ancestors (the unfortunate ones) became extinct and were replaced by the better-assimilated cross-breed of our ancestors. Con must disprove this or else it will be accepted that we were always Homo Sapiens, in a physical aspect. Argument 3: If evolution is not valid, than explain Darwin's findings? Argument 4: If Darwinism and Evolution is not valid, then find an alternative. Citations: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://anthro.palomar.edu...